artwhaley

Not that you need to know for this application, but you can also move things heavier than 1000 kg if you have multiple kerbals in range of the part. Their lifting abilities stack! That's hard to use in orbit, but when base building it can be important.

Ahh! That makes sense. Does it seem like it ought to be possible to have more than one controlled joint in a single part? I'm working on a pack of arms that will be compatible with Sirkut's arm plugin, but I thought it would be cool to make it work with IR too... if it were possible. I suppose I could cut the models up and release all of the different pieces, but that's not really what I'm going for with the part pack. I want to just give users a handful of arms that 'just attach and work.'

And the Munar Industries tanks are one of the most gorgeous and useful sets of tanks available. They fill so many gaps in the stock tank lineup - all of the times you've said "I wish I had a tank that..." are suddenly realized. I'm a big fan. It's the only set of tanks I keep installed.

There we go! Great work! I LOLed at the pictures!

Or notice that it was from 2016?

Your album link appears broken!

When you said 3 joint test, did you mean a single part with multiple servos built in? As in, a robotic arm that could be all one part, instead of requiring assembly? If so, can you post a module example so I can give it a try? I tried putting two copies of ModuleIRServo_v3 in a single config file to try to move two different segments of a parented tree of meshes... and... it did not work as expected. Multiple transforms were being rotated ,not just the one I'd named as the moving mesh.

I've only been neglecting it a couple of years! lol. I'll take a look to make sure the new version still compiles, then I'll get a Github repo up in the next few days.. The core functionality works, I'm just slow at trolling my way through the whole Mechjeb API. If memory serves, the ascent, landing, maneuver planning, node execution, docking, and rover autopilots are all essentially there. If I get it up on the internet, maybe someone with more free time than me will jump in and do some copy / paste and find/replace to help implement the missing modules!

That sure SHOULD work. Like I said, it's been so long since I've actually looked at it, that I'm not sure where the problem is - it could be a change in KRPC, or in MJ itself... Or it could be the .net version as you suggested? @djungelorm is way smarter than me, so I bet he has more useful input. I'll poke around later to see if I see something obvious.

I'm about 80% of the way through totally rewriting the krpcmj plugin to use reflection... the code as it is is a couple of years old... so I can't really hazard a guess as to all of the ways it might be broken. That said...from that error, first question... the mechjeb service is separate from the space center service... and that error says it's not found in the SpaceCenter service. Are you sending commands to the mechjeb service at conn.krpcmj?

Coupled with tweakscale, the IR parts can get small.

I just tried out Vivero's mod last night and WOW. Docking two ships nose to nose from inside the cockpit was pretty incredibly immersive.

Or KRPC. I enjoy writing software for my rockets as much as I enjoy building them!

I'd have no faith in the physics repeating. Floating point errors abound in KSP.

As we were discussing... those aren't thew only two methods that can be used for nefarious purposes. Instead of going line by line through mod code, I manage my risks (and accept the ones I'm too lazy to manage otherwise. [snip]

What you consider logical and what a mod maker considers logical might be different. And in the case of a mod - the only opinion that matters is the author's. Mod makers don't owe you anything. And I wouldn't expect much from them, so long as you keep this attitude. Good luck.

I was probably just being a little over sensitive. I just wanted to make the point that the mod "should do" whatever the author wants it to do. If you'd like it to do something differently, the best course of action is to either politely suggest a new feature, worded as a request, not a critique, or to fork it and make your own version, if the license allows! There's no reason a mod can't add realism, if that's what the author wants from it. You're absolutely right - connected living spaces does just what you're suggesting, fixes the stock behavior by blocking kerbal transfers without a valid path through the ship. If someone wants that fixed, they can grab that mod, regardless of whether or not they have KAS installed. KAS, in fact, has already split into KAS and KIS, because the author wanted it to be one mod that fixes one need, so that players can mix and match it with different mods that do different things. But EXPECTING anything from a mod is the wrong attitude and choice of language and it burns our mod authors out, which is why I'm quick to jump to their defense when someone selects wording like that. I may have misread the connotation - I just heard a bit of entitlement to the mod working the way you wanted. And I assure you... KAS and KospY are already sufficiently clever... but feel free to fork and clever it on up if you need to! The license allows.

I just feel like expecting more realism from a mod than you get from the stock game is a little unreasonable! Like I said - the game has no problem with you transferring a kerbal through a radial decoupler or piece of open air truss... so I don't know why you'd complain about a mod author not holding themself to a stricter standard. The language -'plug docked' isn't meant to imply that you've used a passable docking port. It's just the language that the game engine uses for 'joined the part trees to create one vessel.' But I think connected living spaces would handle both for you - fixing stock and mods!

You could also hide a crypto miner in a mod, conceivably. While we're brainstorming the 'what could go wrong?' And you're right.. .you CAN peek around inside a compiled piece of software... but... I just don't know of anyone who's taking the time to do so with KSP mods!

The same problem exists in the stock game - you can join two command pods by an open truss or docking bay, or radial decoupler and still transfer crew across that 'void.' So it's not unique to KAS that it's possible to move a kerbal through a connection that isn't realistically 'passable.' That's what the Connected Living Spaces mod is designed for - it checks to make sure you're only transferring kerbals through passable connections. So I wouldn't consider spending hours hacking together a custom resource transfer system to be a good use of time. I'd much rather that time go into adding more actual features and letting people decide if they want to 'cheat' or not!

It would be a pretty tall order. As a start on implementation... looking at how the external map view mod works (or worked... haven't heard about it in ages) because it sent a constantly synced version of the game state to a second instance of KSP... so maybe you could take 'snapshots' at a regular interval and feed them into the game the same way that mod worked? KSP isn't really built to make this easy. Save files contain only the data needed to reconstruct a given moment in time... there's a lot of data you'd have to record if you wanted to actually save EVERYTHING for EVERY FRAME of game time.

That's correct! Plug docked makes them into one vessel - you can move resources (and kerbals... somehow) via that pipe and have full control of all the parts together - engines from 'both craft' will ignite together if you hit the gas. Plug undocked creates a physical only connection. You can't transfer stuff or access the part's right click menus, and firing engines will only affect the current craft... dragging the other around by the connection, but not controlling it.

Nailed it! I agree. No malicious code, but dubious copyright and not compliant with the forum rules. I'm... not particularly inclined to reach out to this particular mod author to offer one on one help unless they come here and ask. It just feels like a rabbit hole (mouse hole?) I don't want to go down. lol.

An asteroid is on a simple ballistic trajectory. It's easy to do the math on how long that's going to take. This orbit was ALMOST reentering for days... just barely being degraded by a tiny bit constantly. In addition, the atmosphere 'swells and shrinks' depending on the sun's activity... this difference in the density of the upper atmosphere makes almost no difference when an asteroid barrels through it in a few seconds... but when a space station stays in that zone for days... the small differences add up to large changes in the amount of drag applied. And if you don't know exactly WHEN it will finally bring it down, you have no idea where! For an in game demonstration... compare deorbiting by setting your periapsis to the ground versus deorbiting by setting your periapsis to 68Km. In that second example... how many orbits will it take to come down? Some. Quite a few. Every time it gets lower and slower I can give you a better guess. That's what this was like. But with the addition of space weather.

I feel like being vague here is unnecessary? Point us towards the mod in question. It will take about an hour for some expert opinions to roll in - EITHER people saying "Oh, in this case your concerns are unfounded! Here's why!" Or people saying "Yes, this mod is dangerous, here's why - SPREAD THE WORD NOT TO DOWNLOAD." If it's a real problem, we should call it out. If it's not, we should allay fears instead of having a bunch of non-coders avoiding mods because there's a rumor that something was iffy once upon a time in a thread nobody can remember the name of... It could be a legit mod from an inexperienced poster and we can help them get into compliance with forum rules and get a forum thread started so they get more exposure.... or... it could not...