Akira_R

Just thought I would throw up a little progress report, I figured out what I need to do to get atmo expansion and throttle effects working together, it wasn't what I thought but it isn't super complicated. Now it's just a matter of re-writing the cfgs which is the annoying and tedious part lol, I'll prolly tackle most of that this weekend. While I'm at it I am going to rewrite the squad and nasa cfgs as well if any one is interested in that.

lol no problem, the KSP modding community is generally a really awesome and welcoming place And thank you, I'm glad you like them, but I'm not all that awesome lol, I just adapted some stuff that others had already made and brought it all together, FPSlacker is the one that figured out how to do the atmo expansion stuff, he made the cfg for the squad and nasa rockets, I used his work as a template and just tweaked numbers for hours and hours until it looked good enough for me lol, and it was Nazari that made the cool partcle effects, I'm just a cfg wrangler lol and yeah it's been driving me nuts too, just not quite crazy enough for me to go and mess with it. Just quickly glancing at the cfgs while I'm here at work I think I know what I need to change and if it is what I think it is, it should be fairly quick and easy to do, if not, well then I'll figure it out lol. As soon as I have something workable I'll post it up here, but like I said don't expect anything until later this weekend or next week. Cheers

The Launch effects target any part that uses SmokeScreen for the engine effects, since HotRockets doesn't have an out of the box config for KW you won't get the launch effects. I wrote a config that adds effects to all the KW rockets, it is included in the Community Configs in the OP, install that and you should get the launch effects with the KW rockets. As the one who wrote the config for the KW engines I can say with confidence that you are not doing anything wrong, when I was messing with that I totally forgot to put that in and didn't notice until quite awhile later, I've been meaning to fix that for awhile but have been enjoying actually playing the game instead of messing with the configs. No promises but I should have time this weekend to take a look at how its done and see if I can't work something out that looks good. Glad you like the atmo expansion, that is really the only thing that I added, the actual flame textures themselves were made by Nazari Edit: Oh and welcome to the forums I am very confused as to what it is that you are trying to do.... The MU files are game objects that have to be edited in Unity, they are just particle emitters that define which particle textures are used, how they are emitted, and the basic shape the flame will take. The cfgs included are what add the effects MODULE to the parts and then will further determine the size, shape, and expansion effects of the flame. What exactly were you trying to do?

This is correct, if you look at this and click on the little bubble for the Lander Pods (just click around, you'll find it) it says this: "The Endurance is designed to be used in planetary exploration. The lower sections of these pods contain surface mission stores and can be detached and ferried down to a planet’s surface using the Lander craft. On the surface the empty pod can be used as a shelter to protect the explorers from the planet’s environmental conditions. Each pod features a ceramic heat shield on it’s surface." Cheers

Hey I just wanted to chime in on the scale issue you guys were talking about earlier, if the docking port is made 1.25m then based off the scale of everything here, then the ranger itself will be a little bigger than 3.75m, which would allow it to fit nicely inside say a 5m fairing from KW, which would work out great because the KW Griffon Century is a 5m rocket visually based off the Saturn V, which is what it looks like they launch the ranger on in the movie. Just my $0.02 Cheers

Welcome to the forums! The reason this doesn't work is because the air scoop you are using isn't set up to collect CO2, you would have to add CO2 collection to the part config file, or cfg, in order for it to gather CO2. Also are you using Interstellar Lite, or regular old Interstellar? Because if you are using regular Interstellar, it doesn't use CRP and the ORSX plugin to define atmospheric resources, it uses ORS (which ORSX is based off of) so it's CO2 may not be the same as the CO2 used by BioMass. Stock KSP has no resource definitions aside from the regular old LiquidFuel, Oxidizer, etc. it doesn't define the composition of an atmosphere beyond a simple hasOxygen = True/False. So in order to have resources that can be collected from the land, air and oceans special code is used to put that stuff into the game, this is what ORS/ORSX do. I highly recommend you learn some basics on editing cfgs, it can really open up new horizons for your KSP experience, although it may just induce headaches until you get a grasp on it. There are some tutorials and write ups out there and also just look at what you have installed and try to figure out what does what. All you need is a simple text editor like Notepad, I recommend getting Notepad++ it's free and it has some features specifically meant for editing these kinds of files. Getting a handle on this stuff can be a huge boon, you can adjust parts to your liking, it makes troubleshooting problems easier since you have a better grasp of what does what, and can allow you to do things like modifying the ORS/ORSX files that define atmospheric resource distribution and adjust them to your liking, or edit parts from separate mods to work together.

You are entirely right, it would take a group of people who are willing to take the time to maintain the wiki, with out that it dies, the nice thing about a wiki though is that any one can add to it and help keep it updated. I am more than willing to help contribute, however my organizational skills leave much to be desired and I only have a semi firm grasp on allot of the subjects, but a more experienced person could certainly come in and correct the mistakes I make and maybe go more into depth in certain areas where my knowledge is lacking. The only problem I have with the forums is that it can be difficult to locate information, when things change if the person who started the thread isn't around to update the thread then the info rapidly becomes outdated, which is the issue with most of the current tutorials, with a wiki it's much easier for the community to maintain, IF the community is willing. I definitely think you should go forward with the way you want to do your tutorials, but in the event that the wiki does get off the ground I sincerely hope you will contribute a little to it. I just think it would be great to have a nice centralized repository of the collective knowledge present in the community.

As i am a total newb when it comes to modeling this would be wonderful, and I really think a wiki devoted to modding would be great, a place that collects info on basic cfg editing and parameters, modeling, various plugins like FireSpitter, and what they do, etc. I posted in artwhaley's thread on the subject and it would be really cool to see that happen. Over the last 2-3 years of playing KSP I have made the transition from casual player just trying to get something on the mun, to heavily modding my game, to now modding my mods, editing resources and part modules to get things like USI, KSP-I, NF, and EPL to all play nice with each other and be balanced in a way that fits my desired play style, and messing with cfgs and part welding to make my own variations of parts. I have now reached a point where I would like a part that has a certain visual style or fits a certain niche that i am unable to find in any of the mod packs I can find and I would like to be able to make it myself and maybe be able to start giving back to the awesome KSP community; I now know how to set up the cfg but I have never in my life done any kind of modeling, don't know the first thing about blender or unity or any of that stuff. So having a tutorial that is really geared toward the total newb like me would be very nice, something that just shows the very basic steps from how to set up one of these programs to make models for ksp through to actually getting just a fuel tank in game would be great; and having a video that shadows the text would be very very nice as well. If this was done in conjunction with the aforementioned proposed modding wiki there could be a series from the basic "this is how to make a fuel tank", to adding in animations, effects, how to make wheels and landing gear, etc. With the massive amount of talent already present in the modding community i think a very diverse wiki that could cater to both the needs of the beginner(in the form of tutorials) and the experienced modder(detailed documentation of current part modules and their attributes, and ones added by plugins such as FireSpitter, FAR, DRE etc.) could be created if the community could come together and add to it.

I think this is a fantastic idea! Definitely agree with the feeling on the official wiki, once or twice I have come across something on it that I knew had changed but I didn't feel like it was right for me to change it or something. I have been playing KSP for a couple years now and have been slowly progressing from casual player, to using ALLOT of mods, to now modding my mods, adjusting cfgs, using part welding, and even in doing that I sometimes have trouble finding info about how some part MODULE works, or what the various attributes in it do and how they change things; and now I have reached a point where I am finding that I have a need for some part that isn't in the game or any of the mods I use and I would like to make it, but I have absolutely zero experience with 3D modeling or anything like it, and it would be awesome if we could get a wiki going with up to date tutorials that range from basic cfg editing, very basic 3D modeling (i mean super basic like how to make a fuel tank, I have no idea how blender works or anything) to more advanced stuff like making animated parts, wheels, landing gear, etc. It would also be cool if there was a section with Plugin documentation. Like a section on FireSpitter that lists all the various part MODULEs it adds with all the different attributes for them and what they all do, a section for USITools and all the converters it adds, RT documentation and how to add it to new parts and get the animations and stuff to work, a section for MM, ATM, and EVE documentation and every thing invlolved there, etc. I know allot of plugins usually have documentation of this kind of stuff but sometimes it is a pain in the rear to find, and sometimes it isn't very descriptive due to trying to keep forum posts short. Having a wiki that is organized in a semi-competent manner that provides all of this info and where people can get as in-depth and descriptive as they want would be really cool. Obviously since it is a wiki anyone could add the above sections, it's just a matter of someone with the appropriate knowledge being willing to take the time to add the page.

Unless he decides to change the model of any current parts or change the names of them no. Switching the dll and the the module in the cfg won't cause any save breakage.

This is true but remeber that the Range of the Communotron-16 is fairly short, doesn't matter if a dish can reach it if it can't send stuff back, so these will only work in LKO, If you are going to the Mun or anything you need to have a DTS-M1 on either side, you can also try using the Root range model, a description of how that works can be found here. EDIT: Take a look at this it may help you, also some of the stuff may be outdated, for instance the button it says will turn on the cones actually doesn't look like that anymore, it is the one that looks like a globe, that will display cones in map view, unless that has been changed, I am on an older release (the most recent one for .24.2) so I could be outdated lol You add the stuff in that post to your RemoteTech_Settings.cfg and it will add ground stations at those points, they act just like the KSC station, anything connected to them can be controlled, they can also be targeted individually, not sure what you mean by more "Mission Control" options. As far as another dish I know some mods add comms dish type models you could turn one of those into what you are looking for, also you could just copy the cfg for the biggest dish, rename it, add it to a higher technode, boost the range and up the price, it'll still look the same but aside from that it will accomplish what you are looking for, and you will still have the original for comms in the Kerbol system.

It doesn't look super air worthy does it, I think it could theoretically fly, given what was said that it's take off speed is 0.5 mach and with a nice high angle of attack the body and the wings I think would be producing enough lift to get into the air, however they would also be producing a significant amount of drag. This is where the engines come in, given any kind of normal engine this thing wouldn't be able to push through the drag at the AoA it would need to produce sufficient lift, but with those engines I could see it being able to. As far as control surfaces those front canards would have a significant amount of torque at least for pitch, and the thing would be horrendously unstable, but that is where the magic of modern computer systems and fly by wire comes in and makes it so this thing could be wrestled into orbit given a sophisticated enough flight control system. It wouldn't be able to pull off any kind of controlled areal maneuvers, I suspect it would very much be a get the thing pointed upwards and just GO kind of flight, any kind of turning would be very very slow.

Well not all planes, there are designs that have a high enough coefficient of lift at take off speeds that they simply pick themselves up lol Yes I have done this and yes it is a pain in the ass to control, however given the thrust angle of the engines they should help balance each other, and I doubt this thing will be performing any kind of maneuvers, essentially just get the damn thing pointed and GO, i was simply stating what it looks like to me given the amount of wing out front and the fact CoM needs to be over the gears, also why I stated in the end of my post that some of this would not be possible in KSP Well this solves trying to keep it from flipping out under power with little fuel in the system, still doesn't look like it would glide very well lol

Looks like we had some similar ideas on the flight dynamics of this thing lol

Even a nice round fuselage is going to have a significant amount of lift, especially in the areas where the wings and front canards meat the fuselage, and given the way the engine nacelles are curved I would also suspect that it is expected to fly with a fairly significant AoA, which would increase the lifting effect of the body, so i would indeed suggest adding some lift to the body. The way the engines are angled down slightly plus the steep upward rake of the tail section that starts immediately after the landing gear leads me to believe that for take off it should rotate around the rear gear, resulting in a fairly large angle of attack which should add quite a bit of lift and would make the engines point almost directly down also helping to lift it off the runway, so I think getting the center of mass almost directly over the rear gear to be fairly important. Based off the large canards on the front, the lack of any horizontal stabilizers on the rear and the angle of the engines I also suspect that on takeoff and through the early stages of flight the center of lift would sit in front of the center of mass, this would help to lift the nose up at take off, the angle of the engines and their location slightly behind the suspected CoM would help to counter act the instability this would cause. The engines would have to have a fair amount of gimbal in order to counteract the rotation they would cause in rocket mode once in the upper atmosphere. As it burns fuel I would suspect the CoM would then move farther forward bringing it inline with or just in front of the CoL as it would need to be the most aerodynamically stable during reentry. Is it intended to make a powered landing or glide in? If it is intended to make a powered landing then this CoM shift could cause problems due to the angled center of thrust, of course this could be solved with engine gimbaling or one technique they may employ in the real world is fuel transfer, pumping fuel around to make the desired changes in the CoM, if that is the case that can't really be solved through part cfgs. If it is intended to glide in then the forward shift in CoM would be desirable because of increased aerodynamic stability, although I kind of doubt this is the case as the shape doesn't look like a very effective glider plus given my earlier postulations of getting a significant amount of lift from the body and using a high AoA this would not be good for a glider as a high AoA would also mean a high coefficient of drag. Of course I am pulling 90% of this out of my rear, I really haven't done any reading on the actual specifics and flight characteristics of the actual Skylon, and while I study aerodynamics and aerospace engineering in my spare time I am by no means super knowledgeable in these things, I simply have a basic working knowledge of these and am pretty confident in my grasp of physics, but given the specific design choices I highlighted (curved engine nacelles, upward slope of tail section, canards on the nose and lack of horizontal stabilizers in the rear) and the assumption those design choices were made for a specific reason, I feel as though I'm not too far off base. Of course i could be off in left field somewhere banging my head on a wall. You also have to understand that given the manner in which KSP simulates aerodynamic flight you may not be able to make this thing fly like the real one would. For example if you were to simulate an F22 in KSP it would be horrendously unstable and pretty much completely un-flyable, and in the real world it is a fairly unstable aircraft the only reason it is flyable is due to the significant amount of computer assistance the pilot get that keeps the plane flying, the same thing may be true in this case.

Lol yeah that may do it, although weird it only did it for the small and tiny ones

gotcha, yeah I'm not sure about the rescale thing, from my times running into it in the past I was told that for some reason in KSP if you have a part with more than 2 resources and it doesn't have any modules defined in it then the bug happens, usually any part with more than two resources does have some kind of module in it so this usually only crops up when the module name gets misspelled or the plugin that is supposed to add said module isn't present, I was just looking for any differences between the small/tiny and the regular one and that was what I found. I'm going to change them over to use the USI_Converter, as I use Karbonite instead of Kethane in my career save, put them in my game and see what happens. I love EPL, but man the models just... well leave much to be desired lol.

So I was looking over your cfgs because this is a stock bug that usually happens when you have improper Module definitions and such, and since it wasn't happening with the large smelter I figured maybe there was a copy paste error. After looking at them I didn't find any errors of the sort that I normally see that cause this, but I did find this different between the standard large smelter and the small and tiny ones: Standard smelter: // --- standard part parameters --- mass = 10 dragModelType = override maximum_drag = 0 minimum_drag = 0 angularDrag = 0 crashTolerance = 7 breakingForce = 200 breakingTorque = 200 maxTemp = 5000 [B][U][I]ThermalAnim = LightPulse;[/I][/U] [/B] small/tiny: // --- standard part parameters --- mass = 2.5 dragModelType = override maximum_drag = 0 minimum_drag = 0 angularDrag = 0 crashTolerance = 6 breakingForce = 150 breakingTorque = 150 maxTemp = 5000 [B][U][I]ThermalAnim = EmissiveAnimation;[/I][/U] [/B] Anyways i haven't tried changing this and loading them into my game yet but it was the only difference I could find, they look really good by the way.

Well the different naming was due to different developers taking over the mod. What dish are you using? The only dishes you will see a cone on are the DTS-M1 and KR-7, everything else has such a narrow cone that it looks just like a strait line. Are you just not visually seeing the cone in map view? Because that can be toggled on and off with the buttons in the lower right corner of the screen. For KerbinSide ground stations there is a link under Other Mod Support on the OP of the KerbinSide thread. The last question is up to the developers, but it would be pretty easy to make one yourself by just changing one of the ones provided.

This is usually due to multiple mods trying to add FX to an engine, in the PB-Ion's case I know NearFuturePropulsion adds FXs to it as well as patching the power of it. I would suggest finding the PB-Ion entry in the squad_hotrockets.cfg and deleting it, or delete the NFP patch for the PB-Ion. As far as the other engine goes there is a rla_hotrockets config, a more recent RLA update may have SmokeScreen FX already which is why you have issues with it, you can delete the config for RLA that came with Hotrockets, or if you prefer the hotrockets FX you will need to edit the rla_hotrockets.cfg file to remove the proper engine FX before it applies its own. Could you be a little more specific on what the issue is? Hotrockets currently wont have any effect on the LV-909 Fairingless engine from the SDHI mod as it doesn't target it. No it does not, but I believe NFP comes with SmokeScreen effects already, one issue you will run into if you run both is that the patch for the PB-Ion engine will conflict with the squad_hotrockets trying to apply FX to it, see above for options. If you are talking about the launch smoke like this delete the launch_hotrockets.cfg

I say!!! These look absolutely incredible. Keep up the amazing work, can't wait to see a release!!!

OMG I am so excited to see this picked up by an accomplished modder!!! I really hope that you can get this up to a workable and stable state! I didn't see it mentioned but did the issues with strange SOI's get fixed? I know this was an issue with the last version.

Hey I have a feature suggestion/improvement, the ability to assign multiple targets for a dish, but it still will only link to one of them, say the closest one. Scenario: I a drone airplane on Eve, I have a command station in orbit so delay isn't much of an issue and a 3 sat com network. Now since this is an airplane it needs an antenna that won't break under high atmospheric speeds. The DP-10 is no good because the signal gets spotty because of it's short range, especially heading to the poles, even if I set up polar orbiting sats they will either only be in range for a short time or have such a highly eccentric orbit that the DP-10 can't reach them. So the KR-7 appears to be the best bet, but since it is a dish I have to point it at something, which gets really annoying as sats drop below the horizon and a new one comes over head, if I forget to switch then I'm screwed, also if I leave and come back and the sat it was targeting is no longer in view I have to wait for it to come back in view. Solution: Ability to tell the KR-7 to target all three of my com sats and when one drops below the horizon it switches to the one in view. For balance i think it would be a good idea to make a limit on the number of targets that can be assigned to a single dish, something like 6 or so sounds good. Is this doable?

Wow.. Such Awesome!! Much Needed!!! This will alleviate many of the issues that crop up when building space planes, going to see what happens if I install it on my .24.2 save as that is the one I'm still playing. If it doesn't work then oh well, this may be the mod that gets me to update and start my career over. Great job as always!

Don't compress the medsouz folder, that's the Kerbal Konstructs folder and all it has is plugin data and the textures for the little icons and such, so I don't even make a cfg for it. The only cfg I made when I installed KerbinSide was this one: ACTIVE_TEXTURE_MANAGER_CONFIG{ folder = KerbinSide enabled = true OVERRIDES { KerbinSide/Flags/.* { compress = false mipmaps = false scale = 1 max_size = 0 make_not_readable = false } } }