Tarheel1999

You do realize that Mike (Mu) was one of the devs which left. He has been with Squad for years and filled Felipe's shoes when he left. Also seems highly unlikely that these devs wouldn't stick around until after the release to address any bug fixes/point releases. Bottom line, the speculation on Reddit is probably mostly crap. But something happened to cause 8 devs to leave all at once at this time.

@Cobrag0318 double check you are using the right number for containerModuleIndex.

It seems prettty clear that the devs left for one, or a combination of the following reasons: 1) pay/working conditions; 2) disagreement with the current release date; 3) disagreement with Squad's vision for KSP. Leaving before the release and before the subsequent bug fixing/point releases is pretty much indicative that there was some substantial friction between the departing devs and Squad. These devs have put a lot of blood and sweat into KSP over the years as both devs and modders. Thanks for all of your work and best of luck in future endeavors.

@Jiraiyah Change the CrewCapacity and RecyclePercent to the desired levels in the cfg files you posted. This would seem pretty straightforward. I would not expect anyone to balance this for you or provide support if it breaks.

In a nutshell, MM allows mods to modify parts before they are loaded into the game's part database. This allows mods to add extra modules to parts and to make other tweaks. The mods then use the added modules to implement the functionality added by the mod.

Taniwha, Any chance you might consider adding the ability to control thrust on EVA to this now that the core functionality is in stock? This is very convenient for orbital construction as it's much easier to completely zero out the kerbal's velocity with lower thrust. There was another mod which did this but that mod's author has been MIA since May. I also wouldn't object if this was added to stock at some point. Control could be through right-clicking the Kerbal or by manipulating the thrust indicator on the nav ball.

@nightingale Random question for you...how is KSP keeping track of vessel launch time for the newly launched vessels parameters of contracts in the 1.2 pre? I would have assumed that it was using the vessel's lct value in the save file but that doesn't appear to be the case. Thanks.

The best I could find was in the API documentation. The documentation is not particularly clear on the exact formula but it is something approximating 1 - distance / range. Distance and range are likely calculated numbers and I could not discover the formulas for those calculations. https://kerbalspaceprogram.com/api/interface_comm_net_1_1_i_range_model.html

Sounds like you need to read the manual. It's included in game, the PDF can be found in your KIS install, and there should be a link in the OP.

You need two connectors. One on each vessel.

@tjt If the bug is reproducible you should add a copy of the save file to the Dropbox folder.

KIS. The value can be modified in one of the cfg files. Probably settings.

It's probably not in the manual because it was added by the modder who is maintaining KIS and not by the original duo who created KIS and the manual. Have you looked in the settings file? Seriously, put a command pod with three girders attached in a series on the launch pad. Then try to use "h" on the pod and then on each of girders to see what happens. Or make a quick save and use "h" on one of your existing vessels.

Can't you just hover over the root part and press "h" to split the rover from the pylon? Many moons ago, a new functionality was added to KIS to separate multiple connected child parts from the parent. If it's not "h" it's another key. You can look at the settings file in the KIS directory to see what the hot keys are. I would suggest building a simple test craft at KSC (maybe a command pod with a bunch of girders attached in different fashions) and fiddling around to find out exactly how it works.

@DMagic. It could have also been user error on my part. The day after I "solved" the problem I updated some mods and my contracts got borked again. After several hours of troubleshooting, I found a copy of KAC in the wrong folder. Removing that extra copy fixed that problem. So I'm not sure if I had two separate problems or just one.

16s with the oxidizer removed. Should be enough but you might need the 32s depending on what you are doing. After thinking about this a bit, it occurred to me that you were using the nuclear engines to control fore/aft for docking. If this is the case you should be using RCS and then you won't have to turn around to control your speed. You would need to use the 4-way RCS or pit linears fore and aft to do this though. I disable the yaw/pitch/roll on the RCS and docking unbalanced loads are must easier than it was in 1.05.

If the problem is that the tug is slow to turn or slow to recover from a turn, you need to reduce your mass or increase your control authority. Your tug is 38 tons which seems excessive for Kerbin orbit. Try reducing it to a 32 16 tank, two radial mono tanks, and two nukes, and the other bits and bobs. That should be enough for LKO. A big heavy ship is going to turn slowly. Also I prefer the 4-ways for RCS. @Kerbart Too much torque can be a problem but that is not what OP is describing.

It tumbles on launch or in orbit? As those are different problems with different solutions.

In case it hasn't been mentioned already, here is a simple trick to get a good encounter with the Mun: 1. Get into a circular orbit in LKO (doesn't need to be perfect). 2. In ship view, time warp until you see the Mun just over the horizon. 3. Point prograde and burn at full throttle. 4. Switch to map view and cut your engines when you get an encounter. 5. Add a little throttle and keep burning to lower your periapsis to where you want it. This is not the most efficient way but it's close enough (within 100m/s or so).

If you are not using engines, not using RCS, and not running out of power, then the answer is simple. You need more reaction wheels. That is the only thing that will provide more control authority under these circumstances. Or you could reduce the weight by getting rid of at least half of the mono in that tank.

I can't remember if the nukes are gimballed but if so turn the gimbals off. I have a somewhat similar design and had to turn off the gimbals on the engines to get control while thrusting.

Understood. You can't "dock" things in the Editor. The "decouple" option is what you get when you stack something on a docking part in the Editor. When you hit decouple in space the parts separate and slowly drift apart. Have you tried time warping to speed up the drift? This works fine in my modded install and so it is probably an issue with your ship design or your install. The camera/exploding parts issue is probably due to precision errors. If the decoupled vessels are literally on top of each other, bad things will happen when you reload the scene.

Try decoupling in space. It works differently when there is no gravity.

Start with editing your OP, removing the text log, and adding a link to drop box, google docs, etc for the log. Your post is a wall of text. You could use spoilers or the code box for your log but linking to it is better.

I learned a lot from watching Scott Manley and HOCGaming on YouTube. Scott has a lot of great intro videos. I would look at his playlists for one of his career sets. The only thing to keep in mind for the older videos from Scott and Harv is that the aerodynamics were overhauled in version .9-1 and so launch and reentry are different. The orbital mechanics are still the same though.