linuxgurugamer

You don't like it, you can fix it. I support over 200 mods, and don't have time to make changes I can't test. Maybe you missed the second line I wrote, I'll repeat it here for you: So. since you think it is necessary (I'm not saying it isn't), then you can go ahead, make the change locally, TEST IT, and when tested, submit a PR. So far all I've seen is a "I think". Since it's quite possible that if this change was done in both mods that there would be problems, it has to be tested. It's also possible that if it's in one and not the other, there could be problems based on which one it is in. And I don't have time to test it. You do. I didn't write this mod, I'm only supporting it. Specifically, this mod uses the stock values for Xenon, so it seems that Kerbalism is changing it. Ergo, it seems that Kerbalism is the one which needs to change. I'm not about to change a mod which has been working for many years because another mod, which has also been working for years, seems to have a conflict. The tank mass is a ratio of the fuel, using the basic formula which the game uses, which is based on liquid fuel, of 8 parts of fuel to one part mass, obviously updated for the Xenon density. It's been a few years since I redid the tank volumes and masses, but I use the same formula for all. Specifically about the tankMass, you are obviously using the B9 Part Switcher, since that is the only place where the tank mass is listed as that value. B9 recalculates the tank mass at run time, there had to be something there to avoid a nullref, I put the smallest value in to avoid changing the actual tank mass at runtime in any significant way. As Tonka Crash says:

New release, 0.3.29.5 Updated ShuttleCockpit internal location based on suggestion from github user @ncanceil

No, something must have changed recently, I'll take a look at it. It's not something that I use

That sounds mostly correct. In order to double the range, the power needs to be increased by 4. When you double the range, the area that the antenna must cover increases by 4. Too late for me to do any searches, but google it, you will be surprised by the results. edit: its the inverse square law, read about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law pinging @MalevolentNinja

?????

I don’t support Kerbalism. Kerbalism touches so many things i feel this needs to be fixed in that mod. I will accept a tested PR, if you provide one.

Are there any mods which still use it?

For me, a 4th grade teacher who was truly horrible, encouraged kids to pick on classmates but not her. Same level was a calculus teacher in college who actually fell asleep at the blackboard. Really old , shouldn't have been teaching

No interest for me. Sorry

Well, if the wing is twisted, then it definitely won't fly well. He should have an engineer try to repair it before taking off

@harrisjosh2711 There are two parts with the same title, seem to be the same part except for the size: KerbalizedDragon1.2 (3.75m dia) KerbalizedDragon1 (2.5m dia) One is 2.5m, the other is 3.75m Almost looks like you just copied the entire config and just changed the model name. I can simply add a "-2" onto the name of the larger one, but would like to know your thoughts first. Actually, on all the command pods, it seems that you did a copy/paste, because I see that the EC is 1200 for all of them The EC in the stock Mk1-3 has a max of 150EC. So, is this a mistake, or is there a reason to have so much EC Also, the monoprop seems to be very high, on top of the liquid fuel. The TR-5002 2.5m Advanced trunk holds 220 EC, I can't imagine the command pod holding more. Again, all the command trunks seem to have the same values.

I think I found why the Dragons are unstable, the deflectionLiftCoeff is way too low. Comparing it to stock, the stock value for the mk1pod is: deflectionLiftCoeff = 0.35 mk1pod_v2: deflectionLiftCoeff = 0.35 mk2Cockpit_Standard: deflectionLiftCoeff = 0.6 dragAtMaxAoA = 0.1 dragAtMinAoA = 0.03 While for KerbalizedDragon1: deflectionLiftCoeff = 0.0875 I'll compare the physical size of dragon to the stock parts and adopt the stock settings for the one which is the best match

That is because tanks do not generate lift the same way the pods do. The pods have the following module: MODULE { name = ModuleLiftingSurface useInternalDragModel = False deflectionLiftCoeff = 0.35 liftingSurfaceCurve = CapsuleBottom disableBodyLift = False omnidirectional = False perpendicularOnly = True transformDir = Y transformSign = -1 nodeEnabled = True attachNodeName = bottom } Tanks don't. The tanks lift is calculated during flight, based on various factors. Same with the pod, but the pods specify where the lift is. While I didn't open the model for the part, I believe that the liftingSurfaceCurve is a transform or node named CapsuleBottom in this case I'll look at the Dragons to see what's going on. IMHO, they should do the same as the stock Mk1/Mk2/Mk1-2 etc.

The button looks like one of these, depending on the mode it's in: From the Changelog for v 0.2.0: Added ability to enable/disable mouse wheel in Editors Added toolbar icon which turns green when WASD editor is active Disable WASD editor when part is selected From the Changelog for 0.6.13.2, released on 8/30/2018: Added right-click on button to disable

Try searching for "critt", currently the author is myself

You _DO_ know that you can disable the WASD by clicking the button?

Each fuel switcher does it's work in a different manner, this mod would essentially need to be rewritten for each one. While I'd love to have it work, I'm not going to invest the time it would take to do that, at least, not at this time

That makes sense, so it does need to be rebalance for stock. Any idea how it works in JNSQ?

@Nertea will this system deal with reentry heat and hestshields? Sorry if this was already addressed, hard to read a complete thread while reading on a phone while walking my dog

Yes. First, I need the Player.log Second, you are running a beta, revert to 0.1.9.5, but get me the Player.log first You can also try removing Scansat and see what happens. Finally, the error you are seeing is from Scansat, not ClickthroughBlocker. ModuleManager might be incorrect here, because of the beta

Why did you respond to a 2 year old post? I'm quite sure they have moved on from it

That sounds more like Gilly than Minmus How fast were you going? It's quite possible you didn't realize how fast you were going. Keep in mind that 10m/s is approximately 25 MPH

My only concern with this is the power of the engines. My impression, and some feedback I received, is that they are too powerful. Not sure if I'm going to do anything about it, though.

You need to tell CKAN that 1.8 is compatible. Click Settings->Compatible and then add a check to the left of the 1.8 Feel free to send me a PR. For me, the beauty of this mod was the Critter Crawler, the engines came along for the ride

Are you running any fuel-switcher mods? If so, then you can't use this mod, they are incompatible