GabeTeuton

First, thanks for the mod!! It's awesome. Then, this is my own personal opinion, i struggled with this even though it's pretty clear in the post... actually, never read it... After coming to the forum to try and find if i'm doing something wrong or it's a known bug... i realize my mistake... Anyway i would suggest always having the torque reading enabled if at all possible unless it requires those indicators to do the calculation, otherwise i would suggest re-writing the quoted sentence in SHOUTY CAPS for the other players that have a problem reading (I do realize not reading is entirely my own fault, however i can imagine i'm not the only one who didn't read)

I hope this topic is correctly placed on this forum. While i'm waiting for a slooooooooooooow Ion-engined burn (on KPS2) i'm watching a video about the Blackbird, and it suddenly came to me, i love Conformal Decals from KSP1. The vessels could be very very beautiful if we could add words and "stickers" to them. I know probably some of the incredibly loving and capable modders will eventually make the mod, maybe even the current dev for the KSP1 version, but wouldn't it be great if this came as default? Obviously this should NOT under any circumstance be a priority... it's just an idea! Cheers!

I got that aswell, staged while naming an alarm. Quick fix for now, just pause the game from the warp selector, type the name, then unpause!

Thank youuu!!!!

okay i found it, i'll see if i can manually create a checkpoint to the coordinates on the files, see what happens and report back, maybe some of my other mods messed with this specific contract somehow (i have no idea what i'm talking about)! results: i found the correct coordinates, got there the "entering blablabla" thingy popped up, however the contract timer is not moving... anything i can do other than complete the contract thru the console? reviewing my persistent: per caerfinon's last comment i reviewed my persistent just to see what was there... i noticed that under the parameter "KerbalDeathsCustom", a kerbal is listed that belong to a previous mission, a navy patrol near KSC, i started the mission with the passengers of both contracts, (the patrol had a water landing as an optional objective and wanted to try it...) i ended up doing the patrol mission without issues, but thought about returning to KSC before heading to meeda, as during the water landing a little bit of the airplane was broken, nothing strictly needed... but ksc was on the way to meeda... so i landed and recovered everything, then removed 4 out of the 6 drag parachutes i had on the plane, and launched it again from ksc, reboarded the pax from meeda contract and proceeded to take off... maybe the fact that i "started" the contract with a kerbal from another contract which i didn't take to meeda is messing with it???

Sorry to bother with this... i'm opening Meeda line, but when i arrived at the airport i am correctly "detected as so" however i have no waypoint for the terminal, is there a way i can check for the coordinates on the files?? tried eyeballing it (around the entire base) but no luck... thanks!

I'm interesting in testing this AP, but i don't want to go thru the hassle of installing it and waiting 10 minutes for all my mods to load just to try it out (maybe on saturday if nobody answered by then), does anyone know if it has support for KerbinSide bases? and the added stock bases as of current version? thanks in advance (it looks awesome anyway)

what an incredible mission... 29 notifications for contracts' requests completed, a tiring 2 hour 44 minute flight but Val and Bill managed it just fine for the entire 10000kms, and there's fuel for another 5000kms at least... and the plane performed beautifully, i really liked the idea of using scansat map (even though does not generate a map... but i'll think of something), i'll have to wait (or warp...) till the first scan is done

i guess having the aircraft centered on the map could be a way to do it "ad hoc" much better than just using the map view from stock ksp... i like it, it's not exactly what i'm looking for, but i'm already playing with ScanSat so... (i was planning on doing this long mission while i waited for the first sat to finish the first scans of kerbin :P)

I started a new save with a bunch of mods i never used, such as kerbinside and GAP, which i'm enjoying a lot... however i'm at a point when i'm accepting lots of "do atmo science in kerbin" contracts and i'm pretending to do them all in one go... or most of them at least... i'm trying to have a predetermined route in between all of those waypoints, instead of just going to the closer one and then the closer one to the last one and so on... and even though i imagine my "preplanned" route would more or less follow the exact same route as doing it "ad hoc" i would love to be able to visualize the entire route (just 'cause i'm weird like that) i don't really need an actual map of kerbin, but i was wondering if maybe there's a tool that lets you pick a "center point" and add a bunch of other points at certain distance and angle (in a 2D plane) or heading... and then join them with a "route", i'm doing it my awful way, which is creating the route on GIMP with thin rectangles proportionally sized to distance and rotating them from a "center point (KSC)" after i'm done plotting the points i'm gonna plot a route and see what polygon i get out of it... (again just 'cause) i can't believe i'm not able to find some kind of tool that does this (at least in a more fancy way than the st*p*d process i came up with in gimp...), but i have my doubts about that as maybe i'm not looking for the right terms... and even though i do code a little bit, something like this is out of my range i believe, specially considering my "expertise" is in VBA :facepalm: any suggestion? (i'll upload a photo of what i'm doing when i'm done (while valentina and bill wait on the runway xD hahah), sharing is caring (?)) edit1: i know i wrote calculator... i meant plotter, something visual to admire my routing skills ?)... edit2: yeah i know its absolutely horrible in more ways that's possible... hahah thanks

I just used it to create a 3 satellite network, i checked for your request and to me it seems to be working correctly a synchronous orbit should have a 6 hours period (more or less...) you get 5h:59m:9.4s when clicking the synchronous button, according to the wiki that's (exactly) the sideral rotation period, if you want to deploy your sats behind the "lastest" one you need to have a period 5/4 longer, you are suggested by the app 7h:28m:56.8s => 6 * (5/4) is 7.5, i can't be bothered to get the exact numbers but it seems honestly 100% accurate. this may be resolved by now, but maybe someone else may need clarification regarding your question, let's save someone else's time i guess, at least in part

well i believe i have enough evidence to conclude the flags were the problem... 8km away from ksc, needed SAS because 2 of the 4 winglets broke during launch... besides that, not a single issue... (this is the 20t variant...), tested with the 5t variant and the same result, no issues... (after changing the flags with decals from the amazing mod...) thanks guys, @king of nowhere, @18Watt and @Vanamonde for the support/suggestions, and the least i can do is also thank the guys from Conformal Decals for making the mod that helped me solve this problem by (first) not causing it

Thank you @dok_377!

Hey guys, i'm having a problem which i believe may be a missuse or misinterpretation, my decals are not projecting over more than one part, i have a vertical decal that i want projected into 2 fuel tanks, but it only appears on the tank that i place it, i tried changing the depth, cutoff and edge wear and yet no luck, what is that i'm doing wrong? thanks in advance!

yeah i made a test with the flags on the vessel and drag visualization active, and they had a tiny arrow, but an arrow none the less on each of them, and then removed them all and tried the re entry again without SAS on, position the rocket in a retrograde profile before entering the atmo and it stayed there while the airbrakes where open until the end... then tried it again trying to compensate for the effect they make on impact point, and managed to land a second time, i need some time to do some more testing but i believe the flags were to blame... i downloaded conformal decals to try and "decorate" the rockets that way... maybe those won't generate drag... seriously the only reason i'm trying to set up this kind of RP (having predefined first stages for different payloads) is to have those named and decorated accordingly, if i can't i might aswell abandon this RP u.u. i'll post any news as soon as i can for closure!

i tried disabling SAS as my game senses tell me it should keep whatever profile it had when entering the atmo, i also tried keeping it on when i discovered it wants to face the stream the wrong way, i also tried different reentry profiles, very agressive, or half around the glob on the >70k:<40k alt, and either way at some point in the thicker atmo below bit tries to face the stream the wrong way... just tried it seems a little bit more stable, but if for any reason i close the airbrakes, everything goes to hell again i wonder... the writing PERSHING is made up of flags in 2-way simmetry, could those be breaking everything? last attempt i managed to made a safe landing 2.2 km from ksc, however it depended a lot on me having fuel to burn at around 20k to bring my actual impact point to that mark (being over 200km away otherwise) so trajectories for some reason is not "detecting" or accounting for the brakes to be deployed or not, the prediction does not change based on that edit: thanks for the help so far!

I would describe myself as an experienced KSP player, probably not even close to a professional, but usually i can pull my own weight around if i may put it in those words... however i can't seem to fully understand what is going on... the thing is i started a new career mode not long ago, i have the last mile to go before unlocking the entire tech tree, so at this point i thought it would be a good idea (a little late maybe...) to start using pre-designed first stages based on weight to be placed in orbit, and might aswell go on and try to recover those stages once they are done lifting the thingy... i started with a 5 tons weight and designed a rocket that was able to put those 5 tons easily into orbit and spare around 1k delta v depending on my ascend profile (yeah i know 1k delta v to spare is waaaay too much, does not matter to the question at hand)... that works fine... but whenever i try to reenter the spent booster and land somewhat close to ksc, at some point usually around 20k mts (or so) the rocket losses all of its "stability" and flips trying to face the air "transversally", doesn't matter if i'm entering prograde or retrograde, with airbrakes on or off... and i can't figure out why, i suspect the CoM has something to do with it but i'm not entirely sure... (i tried moving the fuel around, sitting naturally balanced, all on airbrakes side, all on engine side and it's still the same behaviour) i would assume the brakes should be farthest away from the "front" facing part, so i designed it that way for entering retrograde (engines forward), despite that and despite if i'm reentering forward or backward, at some point it wants to face the air "horizontally" and then inmidiately breaks appart due to aero forces... which makes sense, even if it didn't break i would still find it annoying... I'm using FAR, i know i could try and analize all of its data windows, but what's actually painful is that i can't find "intuition" on what's going on, if i throw a tube parabolically (with one side weighted let's say) how does the tube "likes" to fall, weight forward, or backward? and why does the rocket wants to face "long side" the air stream, how can that happen? i can't rationally undestand that... ^^^^^Fuel towards the bottom^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^fuel towards top^^^^^^ ^^^^^^empty or balanced fuel^^^^^^

1 is equal to 100%, so you'll have the maximun signal strength possible in the situation you just described. Otherwise if you had 100% between DSN and your Relay Network, and 50% from your vessel to the Relay Network, then the connection strength from your vessel to DSN would be 100% times 50%, or... 1 * 0.5, which end up being 0.5, or 50%. if you also add an unmanned probe in the surface of whatever planet, there's another connection point in that network for you to also multiply: DSN >>>(1) Relay Network around Kerbin >>>(2) Main Vessel >>>(3) Probe landed, in this case there's 4 things connected by "3" connections (">>>" = connection), keeping the same numbers as above you are missing one strength, that is the last connection: >>>(1) strength 100% (or 1) >>>(2) strength 50% (or 0.5) >>>(3) let's say strength 30% (or 0.3) the when the probe is the active vessel you'll see a signal strength of [1 * 0.5 * 0.3] or 0.15/15% or at least that's how i would calculate it based on what's said previously... i always struggle with relays personally...

I'm creating this page in order to not fill the mod's page with this discussion, as there are already 4 or 5 posts on there... this is the mod's page Now a little bit of background to justify this topic... I love to approach guided by ILS, I know there are other methods, but i just love it since it was introduced to me back in the late 90's/early 00's by Microsoft Flight Simulator, and i knew this mod since forever, so I started playing again recently and installed it when I got to the part of the space program development that needed planes, which was not much later... I like the gathering data from kerbin contracts, and the easier way for me to complete those is by plane, but when it came the time to use it, I was not able follow the altitude indicator (with the autopilot I use, which is AA), that's clearly not AA's fault, and at first doubted that I may be doing something wrong, then I started thinking about the descent rate and its relation to the Glideslope, (I also love Excel) so I got to work.... The lastest test was performed today, I started gathering data from the markers, the point for each marker represents altitude ASL, and DME (distance), the first 3 where taken from the distance displayed by selecting a target, the target was placed roughly where the mod's DME states "0", that place is accurate to where planes would touch down on the runway, a little bit after the start. A little bit ago I took another point, in this case the distance was measured only by the DME so there are 3 points in order to account for the lack of precise numbers provided in the DME (which funcionally speaking is perfectly fine): Now the first thing to realize is that we are talking about triangles in here, the DME/distance is the hypotenuse, the altitude is of course Height, and the Base would be the linear distance between each "end" (which are at the same altitude). After that I needed to calculate the actual Base in order to complete the triangle: You'll see that the chart named "correcting previous for TL" is beacuse the runway at KSC, is at 70m ASL, and that's the altitude at which I would reach "0", then by applying some trig functions i can find "θ", which is the angle of the Glideslope, and it should be around 3º, you'll see that correcting or not the θ's value is roughly around 3º, how accurate that result is could be debatable (specially because MY measurements aren't as precise as they should be), so there's no conclusive evidence to say that there's something wrong with the mod (and after going thru the data I believe that regardless of evidence, there's nothing wrong with it). Now that I have θ calculated based on practical measurements I can do the opposite, and given θ, calculate distance from the "touchdown point" and altitude at that distance. Fixing θ at 3º and using the markers distance (the actual coded distance taken from the files) just as a reference point (which are the actual reference points in the ILS approach system), i can calculate the other 2 sides of the triangle. This time I know the Base and θ, so with another trig function (which is misnamed but whatever) I can calculate the Height, or altitude, and also in orange calculate the ASL altitude, as the altitudes calculated by the functions are based of off the runway altitude so there's no point in pluging those into the autopilot, won't work don't try it (took me some random amount of time to notice when I was not hitting the runway). FYI you'll see there's no value for the hypo, because it does not matter. Well, we are close to getting our desired Vertical Speed, now we need to calculate that base on the assumption of our own horizontal speed, why? Well because i need to reach the "touchdown point" after some X amount of seconds, and that amount has to be the same for my horizontal speed and my vertical speed. That got me thinking that it works as a pretty easy function "y = mx + b", so it should be easier to calculate, and also it will allow me to verify that value, which to my amazement was exactly the same, I believe this should have been expected, but it was amazing anyway. Now I tested this results in-game: So when I am at 10km from the runway (measured by the DME device in the mod) precisely at the calculated altitude (after runway correction), i can set my VS to whatever result I got, and forget about it until I touchdown. Conclusion: The mod is fine as far as I can tell, however it would be interesting if it could show you the VS required to meet the profile starting at the outer marker and providing an altitude to "cross" it, also, it was fun to try and figure out the VS by "mathing". Thanks! Excel Sheet https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GxlbaEN0mr26ZZ7JRGIMbItisGFSkf4B/view?usp=sharing

MJ actually has a flight recorder, a quick glance at it tells me it does not record absolutly everything needed as far as i can tell, but it may work, and yes it was persistent trails (it is...), once i unlock a couple more nodes in this playthrough i may try to keep studying this and also report back. Certainly can, but it's sooooo good when it happens Edit: im unable to test due to not being home, but i believe i figure out the error in my calculations, which does not mean anything yet, but i was using a 1 to 1 scale for hs and vs, which is wrong, specially if i intend to calculate the vs for the perfect approach, i need my excel for testing but seems in my head that it should work once i correct the conversion from one speed to the other, the key was in what you said earlier about the importance of hs, once qgain it seems logical to me at this point to have a broken "slope" with my calculations, i also have an idea for testing regardless of this edition, (got it from danny2462) Edit 2: omggggg its "m" thats the scale, why didnt i notice it earlier, its m from y = mx +b, the love1ng gradient is the scale, maybe? Edit 3:

okay, that's why i came here, i feel happy! I started playing FS at the 98' version haha, it's been a while since my last time actually playing FS, and when i purchased the latest one it crashed (FS) before take off, and as i was focused on other games i couldn't be bothered to re open it to try... still have a flight pending But yeah i don't recall the ILS system descent rate changing, and yeah i do know that some approachs may require a change in VS while they are performed, but we don't have charts u.u, however I saw a chart on the back pages, it is beautiful... but that's waay too much, as this is not FS, the point is, i'm lazy, i want to set the Atmo Autopilot at a -VS @10 kms away from ksc, starting at whatever altitude, and forget about it until its time to masterswitch off and flare , that's why i'm trying to figure out an actual VS to follow the ILS suggestion. I know i can actually do my own, which i ended up doing, splitting the approach in 2 legs for the "first descent" and the last 300 meters. however it sparked my curiosity about the mod suggested glideslope, and how it was generated as it seems that's not quite right, end even though a know a little tiny bit of coding i wouldn't know how to start searching for that module when it comes to horizontal speed, yeah i accounted for it, in my other calculations not related to the approach, i have an excel with some formulas that calculate various things in the most kerbal way possible haha, it got a little bit serious when i started trying to calculate this as i had to watch videos to remember trig functions and triangles, and i love doing that and solving problems that way... when it came to the approach calculations i ended up disregarding the HS, as it was fixed during the entire approach to 65m/s as that's why i set as the final approach speed for the airplane, with sense rather than math (i kind of don't want to use FAR, i love the mod but i want the stock model, for now), but now that you mention it, yeah i know hs has to have a part in the calculations... but i don't know where to start, i would say that i have to add vectors to my math to split the direction of motion into the 2 vectors, BUUUUT i have a good reason to disregard HS, i use KER aswell, and as far as i can tell, the horizontal speed always matches my AA desired speed, and the vertical speed (inside AA) has no effect on the HS, AA sets up the plane parameters to meet both my desired HS and VS, so regardless of my math if i set the HS @65m/s, and the VS @-2.5m/s it will keep both values on point until changed, and i wasn't able to get a consistent VS that would follow the suggested path by this mod, keeping a constant HS well i guess know its time to show the math, please excuse my mixture of languages

I have a question for you guys, cause i believe i am clearly doing something wrong... i love flying planes, actually i love building them and have the autopilot fly them, at least in ksp... so this is clearly a must have... however i'm having issues when trying to set up the correct approach, i also do like math, (don't know as much as i could though)... so in a few words... i spent the entire morning more or less trying to figure out my vertical speed setting to meet the correct glideslope selected on the KILS (kerbal ILS i woud say (?),) the thing is, i can't find to mathematically arrive at the actual value... actually i believe i did, i'm not sure if the math is sound... but it seems okay and it's consistent with itself... i deviced an excel sheet in which for any given right triangle with an angle of 3º, and a given distance (base) it will calculate at what altitude i am, this in turn would allow me to via the gradient of the hipo figure out my optimal VS to meet the glideslope start to finish. FYI i know this is me being extremely picky, i just do it for the sake of it, i don't need it really and managed to land semi automatically plenty of times, but i do like it when it goes perfectly... the problem is i arrived at a gradient that seems a bit odd, 0.052408, which given i used meteres to calculate, is my VS in m/s (i guess), i tried to plot it in a graph, and yeah, makes sense, at the end of the "distance", i "arrive" or the function meets the "ground", however in ksp that does not work... i tried getting some data to figure out if the slope may not be what it seems, but i get conflicting data, from practical observation, as the angles i get with every measurement are not consistent with each other, and i guess they should if all the approach is done at a said glideslope, also i took into consideration the error on the practical reading as i was reading KM instead of m, would be a case of calculating the angle for the 100 places in the decimal read just to see if any average value would pop up, it did not for the 5 measurements only 1 was sharing some part of the number that formed the angle, not and exact match and alternative could be that actually the slopes are divided in which case the results could potentially make sense, however i don't think that's how they work once you enter the ILS signal, so i would be surprised if the mod was created that way i also tried to verify my calculations (the once on the second paragraph, and they did not work either, to verify them i used a sensible point, the beacons, 10km out of the runway header there's the outer beacon, with a 3º slope, the distance i need to have from the runway should be 524.0778 (according to my second paragraph), however at that distance i'm way below the glideslope path, tested the right altitude at the outer marker and it turned out to be 675 i believe that is exactly the value when you are going thru the middle of cone the beacon transmits, so with that, let's figure out the angle/slope, which was 3.861607º, which then crosschecked at a different distance, did not match, i anyway went on and figure the VS needed to follow the slope would be 0.0675 m/s which was not haha so i tried to experiment with different vs values and it seemed to my inexperienced eye that the glideslope was actually splitted for some reason, as the VS that followed the instrument was at first @10km out about -5m/s, then it goes down (up i guess) towards 2, and at the last moment, about 200 mts or so (may be closer) it jumps to about 4 or 5 again... once again i may be requesting a kind of perfection that is not required whatsoever, or also i may be doing wrong calculations, or maybe i'm missinterpreting the idea of G/S, however i believe i'm not, if anyone wishes to go ahead and help me out, i'll be grateful, i guess the question would be: is there supposed to be a unique glideslope along all the approach once you enter ILS range? (i believe the answer would be yes) is that glideslope able to provide with math the perfect VS at which you'll hit the runway perfectly? (again, i believe it is) am i missinterpreting anything at all? (yep, i also believe so, but i can't figure out what) if you would like to see my calculations i can upload them

If anyone is having issues trying to cycle thru created missions and back to all contracts i believe it's fixed if you go to the settings and check the option "Use Stock UI Style", i am unable to say if this is a bug i caused myself due to other mods, or if it comes from this one... but if it works, it works!

In case anyone is wondering, works with the lastest version:

Much appreciated i wasn't aware of the RPM error, i mean the first time it showed was when i was taking the puushes for you haha, so i thought it could've been because of something else!! Good to know i also helped you with that!!! On second thoughts I may have skipped that error due to not (as of yet) used all the cockpits with the same "intensity". Thanks anyway!!!