gnivler

Is there an issue tracker being used anywhere? It looks like Github is out of date despite the mod being updated (and thanks for that @pizzaoverhead!) It's a loaded question, and may not be a bug and I haven't thoroughly tested it, but it I'm hearing the sounds persist for a while after throttle cutoff (with zero monopropellant being consumed).

Can you please upload a craft file to test against?

My suggestion is try stock + RT to see if they persist. If you can replicate them, open issues on the tracker https://github.com/RemoteTechnologiesGroup/RemoteTech/issues. There are some problems with the FC on Windows at least, where old instances remain visible and functional but essentially fail. Closing the FC window and opening it again is the only workaround I'm aware of there (see https://github.com/RemoteTechnologiesGroup/RemoteTech/issues/578) I'm interested to test the manual burn and warp problem if it holds up. Sorry, I'm not sure about the slave status offhand... new to RT. Is it possibly an indicator of a relay(ed) connection?

Thank you!!! I was incorrectly assuming that my current orbit would have a suitable intersect with the other 2 but I was too high up. I could have found it if I did a couple orbit+ clicks but didn't think I needed to. Once I lowered the orbit I was able to dial in a maneuver that put me behind the trailing satellite and saved me from going to bed grumpy.

Hoping someone can point out my mistakes, I'm at a loss with something very basic... I'm working from the tutorial http://remotetechnologiesgroup.github.io/RemoteTech/tutorials/c16network/ and have built this around Kerbin 3 times. Now I'm trying to do it for Mun and have 2 satellites up with good separation and sync (altitude 1700 with separation 2545.58KM) but every attempt I make to set up the 3rd results in it being on top of one of the other 2. My process is targeting the previous satellite, setting the apoapsis marker at the target altitude and with that separation to target. I can use either satellite as the target but the other is always waiting at Ap. I've tried eyeballing 90 degrees but the separation values don't make much sense. I'm assuming this is a simple mistake but I'm too stupid to figure it out.. so please, any help would be appreciated!

That's what I was thinking. There are both sets though... egg/conic fairings that both decouple and don't, and interstate fairings that both do and don't decouple. I think.. not at my PC. I need to build bigger rockets.

I'd rule out my system... validate Steam files.. go back to stock + PF, new sandbox career. See what happens. Since the build for 1230 i haven't had any problems.

@TK421d maybe you're using the structural fuselage parts instead of the aerodynamic fairing parts? The prior don't decouple by design.

@edog300 I'm not sure if you want issues reported (at all, or here). It appears that in some cases, the fairings will reset to the first stage if you click Reset in VAB. Minor issue obviously (if it's not just me). I love this mod, thank you.

Works! Awesome!

That method of burning from LKO to hang Ap over the AN/DN is awesome. Thanks!

Thanks for the post, very good info. I was doing some quick searching trying to figure out if there was another way to do this... you're fairly sure you have to eyeball it? I have OK results by lining up the AN/DN on the launch pad, rotating to the desired inclination etc, but it's not as accurate as I'd like.

Thank you for working on this! I noticed that Steam has a pre-release branch (build 1228) as well as the regular branch being 1.1 with build 1230. I've got the latest PF release on build 1230. I can't resize the base or attach fairing walls. Figured you already know this, but just in case not.

Is that what would be required for the warp button? I have no idea. That does sound like overkill if so. I don't agree that it's with the counter-intuitive or that (most) people couldn't figure it out. The usage guide for this mod would be succinct so there's that as well. Alternatively It could be an option.

I like this as well another idea.. 'warp to next node' as provided by stock, just as a button on the UI and the smallest possible correction, in grammar. On the key bindings window it says "Show less trajectories" but the proper wording is 'fewer'.

Ahh! My fault for not reading that well enough, sorry. I just woke up Looks like you got another reply from a very reputable source!

Yes that sounds normal; you need to upgrade the tracking station and the mission control building to obtain "flight planning".

Woohoo! You are the man!

Looks like this is intended, the couplers are heavily strengthened by KJR.. right from ferram himself! http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/55657-0-24-2-Kerbal-Joint-Reinforcement-v2-4-3-7-25-14?p=1441635&viewfull=1#post1441635

I've found a bug or conflict I think, while using 3 mods one of which is KJR. I posted to the bottom of this thread http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/92278-WIP-Part-Radial-Engine-Mounts-by-PanaTee-Parts-International?p=1437925#post1437925 Basically with an IR Rotatron connected to the back of this radial mount (rocket > Rotatron > radial mount > engine), the rotation is screwed up. When I disable KJR the rotation works. I'm not sure where the root issue may be, but if you need logs or something I can try to provide something.

Sorry, had company this weekend so I wasn't playing... I thought for sure it was my IR after reading your post, and I was on 0.18.4, upgraded to 0.19a but still no dice. It looks like we're doing exactly the same thing but with different results. I have a ton of mods installed right now. Just figured it out! Kerbal Joint Reinforcement, I had a hunch and sure enough, works with that one uninstalled. Thanks for the compliment on the design, remains to be seen how effective it really is. I landed it on Minmus but had to drop it from above the ground because it was so top heavy it was falling over... Some quantum struts to secure the wheel area to the landing/transfer stage might help with the bendy-wobble landing.

Hi - sorry for my poor description. I should have said the Rotatron was between the radial mount and the fuselage ... here's what I'm doing and seeing (they act differently, the two-sided one barely rotates but is still disjointed). The last pic is how it looks with the stock fuselage part (partially rotated for effect). Thanks for checking it out, let me know if I can help at all.

Thanks for the mod. Sorry if this is a known issue already, I didn't find anything with a cursory search. I tried attaching a IR Robotics Rotatron under the radial mount, it seems to have problems, where the mount but not the engine attached to the mount rotates. The engine stays in the original orientation, visibly detached from the radial mount. The round IR piece under the nice models you've got looks weird/bad too, mentioning in case that has some relevance, not implying you need to make it prettier or anything!

Thank you!! I had a landed mobile base that had trim set for reasons unknown, key mashing maybe. I would have never thought of this (reset trim is alt-X by default on Windows) Awesome mod Arsonide, thanks for making it for us all!

Hope this isn't completely off-topic, I've spent a couple of hours trying to figure it out without success. It seems like the 'adjust delta-V' button accounts for acceleration in the burn time, but not the increase as fuel is spent, is this correct? For instance the acceleration starts at 26m/s2 but ends up at nearly 40 after a burn. The total delta-V is correct but it seems that the burn time ends up being considerably too early given this increasing acceleration. I'm finding my intercepts are spotty which is the problem I'm trying to solve, if there even is one I'm just doing it wrong. Hope that makes some sense, I can clarify if needed.. Thanks, love the mod!