JamesL86

Gotta bug here. Autostrut seems to be disabled when Kerbalism is installed. I have enabled the advanced tweakables in my settings but its simply not available in the right-click menu of parts in the VAB or the SPH. Edit: Rigid attachment is available but not the other autostrut option.

I got a little something that might help but be careful, its my last bottle.

I don't typically get into these but your point has been heard several times over already. We understand that you personally as a singular individual do not like the look of these new rocket parts. Perhaps some other folks here agree with you, and perhaps some do not. Either way can we please progress this particular conversation along from the current "uh huh, nuh uh" back and forth so that other folks can enjoy the thread. Thank you.

I have not been much into modding the tech tree, or anything really. What you might want to try first is what I do. When you start a career, adjust down the science yield slider to around 50% or wherever you feel comfortable. I am not sure how low you can go with it but I heard somewhere on the forums once that there is enough science in the solar system to be able to knock it down to as low as 20% and still be able to unlock everything. Dunno how true that is though. Also, if you have not already given it a try, activate the option that requires you to pay monies for the equipment in the tech tree nodes. This will mean that you not only need science for the nodes but you need cash as well to be able to access what you unlock. Some folks don't like that option but I tend to think of it as the difference between knowledge (node unlock) versus application (purchase individual thing inside node).

I found this beauty on YouTube! Figured the Hype Train might want a little company while its waiting to depart.

Hello KSPers. Gotta question for ya. Does anyone know of a mod that will pump ALL fuel to a tank of your choosing? I've got a new spaceplane design that makes copious use of the little Oscar tanks (like 10 of them) and I'd prefer to not have to drain the little bits of fuel left in them one by one when its time for re-entry. Any help would be appreciated.

I suppose the things I look for are more functional than aesthetic in nature. I have even been thinking of sharing a few designs on here for the first time. My design list is as follows... 1) If the mission doesn't need it, then the craft doesn't either. For instance, I have a crew pod I use a lot that has about 250m/s deltaV with just mono engines, no service module. It has two of the round mono tanks either side of the docking port on the nose of the MK1-2 pod. With a couple of mono engines, RCS, parachutes, and the heatshield with ablator tuned down, it can deliver 3 kerbals to and from my stations easily with a total cost of less than 24,000 kerbal bucks including the launcher. I would note however that I was only able to achieve this design by using the Gravity Turn mod. The gravity turn that program can achieve is far better than anything I have ever seen before and its predictability allowed me to design the craft down to a "T". 2) I have a strong dislike for "severe" part clipping. I do clip things a bit from time to time but I only started doing it after we got stock tools that allowed it. I never purposefully try to "jimmy" things or hide things by using it though. In my mind, I try to stick to the way I feel the parts were intended to be used when they were put into the game. 3) "Kerbalizing" is encouraged. I think this one sort of speaks for itself lol.

I saw the thread title and immediately thought of this.

Ops, activate all moorings in preparation for new arrivals. Coms, send out a sector wide transmission on all frequencies that Spacedock is ready to begin receiving vessels. Break out the bubbly ladies and gents, job well done! Three cheers for the intrepid crew of Spacedock! HIP HIP HOORAY! HIP HIP HOORAY! HIP HIP HOORAY! (Edit) A bit corny I know but, considering the site name and the fact that I have begun recently re-watching DS9, well, this is what you get lol.

Would it be possible within the code to do a marshmellow experiment that could only be done while under high speed in atmosphere? Another one might be an ant farm maybe? Not sure how to make it different from the Negative Gravioli Detector though. What about a time sensitive "Grow Your Own Crystals" experiment? Something that isn't done the moment you hit run but instead takes some time. In the same vein as the previous one maybe a "Sea Monkeys" experiment as well? OOH what about an experiment that you have to put a surface sample into that then has the kerbal taste it to see if its snack worthy or not? Oh and here is another one.. One of those crappy little pinwheels you use to get as a child, strapped to the outside of a plane to test like wind speed or something? Another one might be a simple automated match striker to test for the presence of oxygen? That is pretty much all I got for now. hehe

Not really sure what to say about this new series honestly. I know I am NOT forking over yet ANOTHER fee for a subscription service so if I do want to see it I'll have to acquire it by other means. If its in the JJ-verse then its an automatic !@#$ off from me. If it involves a lost ship or a ship that is NOT the Enterprise on a mission of exploration and discovery, then it also gets a !@#$ off. If its "combat the evil alien of the week" bull hockey like, Voyager, or Enterprise got into, then it can !@#$ off as well. If it tries to cast anyone that has ever been attached to Disney tween shows or a dumb sitcom or has never done at least some proper theater work, then, well, you know the drill by now. Lastly, if I have to see one more stupid story arch involving the Borg, I may just gouge out my eyes and lobotomize myself.

Launch to rendezvous might do it. I am not entirely sure though. I've used it in the past to launch direct-to-Mun/Minmus missions but not since back in .25.

With regards to the OP, I think some things may "appear" to work differently IF you are the kind of player that is always pushing the envelope with part counts and crazy designs. I say "appear" because with multi-core support you may see less incidents of random for-no-reason explosions as the physics will hopefully crap out or just plain give up, less. With general performance in mind, I think we could see a lot of old issues within the game just disappear. The big thing you have to keep in mind is that with a game engine overhaul, there will be large portions of the code that have to be gone over. In most cases a lot of what devs are doing in these situations is quite literally just cleaning up messy bits of programming, which in turn, leads to less overhead needed from the system the program is running on in most cases. Its one of the reasons why you often hear scientists and science geeks talking about "beautiful" equations or programmers talking about "beautiful" code work. Getting an equation or a bit of scripting down to something that is practically perfect for the task with no extra fluff or ragged edges is quite a beautiful thing to behold, and, just flat works better. Especially when it comes to programming. Having a few ragged bits of code around in something that only runs every five minutes isn't so bad. Having a ragged code that has to also run every 60 ticks, or 60 times a second, can bring even simple games to there knees if its running on minimum spec hardware or even mid-grade stuff.

I am a bit fuzzy on this whole CKAN opt-in opt-out license modder thingy kerfuffle everyone is talking about. Basically what I am hearing is that... 1) Modders want less headaches that would be brought on by CKAN user mod installations, especially if the mod listing on CKAN was out of date to begin with. 2) CKAN users want everything listed through CKAN because its simple and easy to use and often alleviates some of the headache of mod use. 3) On top of these issues is the issue that CKAN is already ruffling some feathers with users being able to list mods themselves despite modders wishes which has already been causing some tension even before the KS incident. From my personal perspective, I pretty much use CKAN exclusively and would love all mods to be listed there by default. However, mods will, in my mind, always fall under the jurisdiction of the authors and not the users. With that said, Opt-in is probably the best way to go. However, I do have a suggestion to the CKAN people as follows... Would it be possible to integrate AVC in with CKAN so that with CKAN's current ability to see manually installed mods it could then indicate that a new version is available from outside the game? The issue I have always had with AVC is that I have to start the game for it to tell me that a mod is out of date. Having mod version checks in CKAN with manually installed mods using the already existing AVC database might just save a lot of headaches all the way around for both users as well as modders.

I looked at the picture and I still don't understand the question? I thought the thread was about favorite combinations of various components within the game.

I am not sure I understand the question? Mechjeb and PilotAssistant, as well as the in-built SAS controls by the nav-ball, aid in flying the missions I create.

I could not have said it better. I personally don't really have a horse in this race really. I use CKAN but I only use like three or less mods. Here is the bottom line ladies and gentlemen. Have you spent time making it? No? Have you spent money on it? No? Have you contributed to it programming since its an open-source project? No? Well then quit belly-aching. Its being provided by one of your own. Its not corporate and its certainly not shoving bad net-mojo down your throats either. Can it be slow and unreliable at times? Absolutely. I doubt the fella making it has the time or money to invest in third-party 24/7 server administration or redundant infrastructure like the big boys do. Need I remind you folks about the childhood story of the mouse and the cookie? Now... If you can find a way to help out this fella running KerbalStuff then that is where you need to be focused on and quit biting the hand that feeds you.

Wow a response from the man himself! Its a privilege sir! I am sorry that I took so long in writing my response to goldenpsp that i missed your response that was made before it. Having a bit of an OCD bent towards grammer but not being physically able to type well is, well, a slow process as you might imagine. Your two replies do put give the topic a bit more clarity and I appreciate that immensely. Its funny that you mention the habitation requirements for kerbals. Its a bit of a personal rule of mine to ensure that kerbals have sufficient space to occupy themselves within for long trips. Generally speaking, I have a sleep can (Hitchiker) for every 2-4 kerbals depending on flight time and, unless needed, no kerbals in the actual operations sections of the ship/station (such as command pods and labs etc). It just "feels" better that way. So, i can say now that this would actually compliment my gameplay style now that I fully grasp what it is doing. You are right of course that it is a bit confusing at the moment but I imagine that you are splitting your time quite a bit between Squad and your own personal projects so, its justifiable. I would imagine that with your library of mods that have grown quite substantially since I was last around the forums with any frequency, that deactivated features of say, USI-LS, are activated upon the installation of other relevant mods, correct? As I have said previously, I really do enjoy your enthusiasm for expanding the game mechanics in KSP. I especially enjoy the way you try to keep things mostly stock-a-like. I use to play with lots and lots of mods back in the day but, it got to the point where I spent more time managing the mods than playing the game proper. I never did get much into doing file tweaks and, being a steam user, I've never been one to keep older versions for mod compatibility. Nowadays I tend to stick to "utility mods" as I call them. Quality of life improvements like various autopilot programs and Kerbal Engineer etc etc. Anyway, I am sure I have droned on long enough. Thanks again for the responses both of you (Roverdude and goldenpsp). I'll definitely be giving it a bash now. Maybe... One day.... I'll work up the nerve to dive into the MKS/OKS stuff. For now, its a bit of a challenge just trying to figure out this fancy ISRU thingy-ma-jiggy and its accompanying doo-hicky-whatsits.

I kind of like the idea now that I have read the full description. Thanks for that btw, goldenpsp. The only part that would bug me would be the lifecycle of the equipment. I am fully invested in the idea put forth by Squad's design decisions that kerbal equipment simply does not break down in the game. Its the reason that I do not use any of the breakdown mods and that I agree with Squad's continued stance against any sort of mechanic to that end in the stock game. I may give it a toss in my current sandbox but I think you might be right. TAC-LS is probably what I'll stick with. Its been fairly reliable and I understand it well. Are there any other LS mods floating around out in the modder-sphere? I seem to recall something like Iron Cross or ION Cross or something like that back in the day. I can't seem to find a reference to it but then again this new forum is still confusing the ever-loving hydrazine outta me, lol. Surely with the amount of time I've been away from the game there must be more than 2 LS mods out there, right?

Well, I have had a look through the link you put in there. I have also skimmed back through about half of the 60-odd pages of posts. I really wish Roverdude would simply update the OP with all current relevant information for those that are trying to find it. There is absolutely nothing in there pertaining to this "habitation" mechanic and nothing explaining things in the Github link that I can find. Near as I have been able to tell skimming through the comments the habitation thingy is some sort of time limit for the mission based on space available. I am not sure if it breaks parts but I saw a few bits about maintenance mentioned. Respectfully to Mr. Roverdude, this sounds like a lot more hassle than I really wanted out of a LS mod. I really truly do find your work fascinating but it does not really match my playstyle, which is predominantly Sandbox or that mod I can't remember the name of that unlocks the tech tree in career but still leaves you dealing with contracts. If you have any recommendations on other LS mods that might be floating around (I only know of TAC, USI and Snacks) then I am all ears. I am mainly looking for what I guess you could consider the pre-habitation style USI-LS as described by the friend that led me here. Mind you, I doubt he is aware of these updates since he has not played in many months. I have tried out snacks in the past but it was sort of on the other end of the spectrum from USI. Where I find USI-LS (and MKS etc) to be more complex than I want to get into, Snacks was a bit too simple. TAC is what I have mostly always used but good greenhouses and other in-situ methods of supply for that mod are in my experience hard to come by. I suppose I could try a LS-less play but then I feel like there is not a lot stopping me from just dumping kerbals all over the solar system and leaving it at that. At any rate, thanks for the info, goldenpsp. I still have not found a complete explanation of this habitation thing but I'll continue looking.

I am new to using things other than TAC-LS and I have not really played modded KSP that much in a while. I read through the USI-LS OP on page 1 and I did not see anything about the above mentioned things. I was directed to USI-LS by a friend of mine that said it was simpler to deal with than TAC-LS plus it had an integrated greenhouse part. One less mod ya know? So, what is this stuff anyway? I hope it not some complicated stuff like MKS. Hats off to Roverdude for the added complexity with MKS but I just wanted a LS mod, with a greenhouse part in it, that would give me a game mechanic reason to go visit outposts every so often. USI-LS is, I think, the only LS mod that has the greenhouse bit and does not have a buttload of superfluous resources. I could be wrong though. It may not be that hard to believe considering my above response but, I am not tech savvy. I also don't really follow the forums much at all and its only recently that I sort of made myself start interacting more. Sorry if I step on any toes or break any unspoken rules of forum manners ahead of time. I generally do not participate in internet social structure very much.

Not sure what is going on but it seems that all my command pods and stuff now have repair parts in them for some reason. Also, there appears to be additional stats in the info window called habitation? I only have the USI-LS installed and no other USI mods so I do not know what exactly is going on.

I have tried my fair share of spaceplane stuff but I really do prefer the simplicity of capsules. I have recently been brainstorming a series of standardized capsule-based designs to be used for various purposes. These range from LKO crew lift/return for station transfer to orbital ships, to Mun/Minmus direct missions and beyond. The capsule costs mere pennies to build and launch and while it may be slightly more costly in the long term, if I do lose a ship then at least the equipment is way less expensive. There is also the added benefit of capsules being (in my opinion) easier to create emergency escape systems for. I have been playing around with vertical launch/horizontal landing systems as well, but the cost has been 2-3 times higher for a vehicle of this type with the same mission parameters as the capsule designs.

Hmm, did not even think of that, though in my defense, I don't use very many mods in general such as Infernal Robotics. I think overall though, this is something that has been missing from the game for a good while now. I know that there are other mods that add different new parts that work well for this sort of thing. I'm just looking at this from the angle of fixing the stock parts by giving more options as opposed to just adding new parts. Who knows? If we find enough people interested in this idea that a modder decides to take it on, it might even get put into stock.

Thanks. To go into a bit more detail, the science lab and the hitchhiker both need a horizontally oriented IVA. Likewise the cupola needs an IVA whereby the kerbal within is oriented 90 degrees out from the stock IVA position so that it could be used as say, a control tower or other dome-like construction. I know a lot of people just used these in different orientations anyway, but for some reason it really REALLY bugs me that the IVA is wrong when used in orientations other than the intended ones.