linuxgurugamer

Take a look at TweakableEverything, it does it in the VAB, and I could probably come up with a custom dll for this, depending on what's needed.

maybe like this: if (HighLogic.CurrentGame.Parameters.Difficulty.EnableCommNet) CommNetNetwork.Instance.CommNet.Rebuild();

Oh. So I should just write them as patches and include them in each mod, right? @Shadowmage I guess this should have been directed at you.

Looks good, please send it along. I'll add it as a higher level box, since it is smaller. Thanks

How?

This was the 1st mod I wrote which did anything significant, as such, it needs some love. I've marked it for attention in the near future Thanks

That's what I thought. Thanks

I just noticed that some parts that I'm maintaining (command pods) don't show the crew portraits. After looking into the cfg, the only thing I can see is that it doesn't have any sort of IVA (ie: no INTERNAL node) Is an internal node necessary for the crew portraits to show? This is a problem because, although the part does have a hatch, I can't tell the kerbal to go EVA Thanks

@steedcrugeon Since you seem to be adding these changes to the mod, the following is a list of parts from the mods that I maintain that could be eligible for rescue contracts. If you think I should write a patch instead, let me know OnionNewScience j_4m_lab_short BSLcrewCabinScience BSLmk12SciencePod BSLmk2ScienceFuselage BSLmk2ScienceLC K2Pod quizTechMk1K10Cockpit quizTechMk1EagleCockpit quizTechMk2ThunderboltCockpit 625mBonny SXTClyde SXTBuzzard SXTke111 25mKossak SXTEntenteCordiale SXTGoose SXTmk3Cockpit52 SXTOsaulNoseCockpitAn225 SXTOsualRadCockpit MEMLander STXCANIOT SXTDLK83EHabitat SXTISSHabISK30 SXTLander SXTCrewCabSSP10 SXTCrewCabSSP20 SXTSPKTRCabin SXTRotatingMk2Ring sxtairlockAnimated

Cool! Here is a thought: Could you make the castellated stuff either configurable, or retractable? I don't know how difficult that would be, but if it was retractable, then one part could serve two purposes. Same comment re. the gendered ports.

@Sharpy This is for probes, not manned craft. And, no one said anything about part count. and, while the Hanger mod is nice, I don't thing it is relevant to this discussion.

Really? I though that was part of the original pre-requisite, or was your thinking that only the gendered parts should be orientation sensitive? Actually, @steedcrugeon was somewhat ok with it. I don't, I think it can be just a bit too fiddely if it is. But, I do like the idea of gendered ports, which is why I suggested both gendered and non-gendered Hmm, interesting. Assuming both sides had command capabilities (probe core, etc) which was the side the that did not have the option to undock? the side which initiated the dock or the side which was docked with. My bad, one side didn't have power I did notice that even with a very small seperator (the OctoSat Plate), the magnetic force was still there after undocking, so I couldn't get apart. When I used the TR-2c, it was ok. Once I was able to dock, the one which allowed the undock was on the probe core (the one I was NOT controlling). Here is a link to my test craft. You will need the Octosat mod installed, and don't forget to deploy the antennas and solar panels One thing I noticed which was rather nice. One docking attempt I made while 45 degrees rotated. The ports pulled together, and I was then able to slowly rotate around until they mated. So personally, I'd rather see a male/female set of ports rather than the orientation sensitivity. Since you have these,how much more difficult would it be to make another pair? I can definitely see the need and use for what you have. But, my thinking is that any collisions will occur before docking, not while it's docked. So, orientation specific is useless from that point of view. Regarding the size, looks good. I guess the GIF war is over, here is a picture of my test craft:

Netkan is all done, as soon as it gets accepted, it will be finished. Within a day, probably

Netkan is all done, as soon as it gets accepted, it will be finished. Within a day, probably

Model name had a case error, it should be: model = PicoPortBasic.mu I don't particularily like that the orientation sensitivity is built-in. I tried it by putting a small decoupler between two of them, when I got in space (using Hyperedit), I had control of the vessel, but the docking ports wouldn't undock (the otion wasn't there), I decoiupled using the mini decoupler I used for a spacer and the octosat core I was using became unresponsive. What was really strange is that the RCS and SAS went dim, not out, but ther was nothing in the logs Not this, I tested without and had the same problem Duh! I forgot to put on batteries Ok, i docked the two, only one has the ability to undock ????

Thanks to @sarbian: New release: 1.1.3 Fixed emitter problem

Are you referring to TweakableEverything?

I generally try to keep up with bug reports, but sometimes other work comes first. But without knowing a problem exists, there isn't much I can do to fix it Thanks for speaking up

As long as the .version file is kept up-to-date, it should be fine. I'll get to it later this evening. And thank you

Ok, thanks. So, is that some sort of cube sat mod you are using? And I assume you are avoiding tweakscale Take a look at TweakableEverything, it has a section for docking ports to do exactly that

mass = 1.25 entry_cost = 9000 cost = 5000

I'm pretty sure it's a KSP bug

Good points, will do that when I do the update. Any other suggestions? I was thinking about making them cost a bit more than the small lander can. Also, the mass seems a bit lite

Really? Could you post a picture showing the size comparision between the smallest Octosat and your probe? I'm curious, Octosat was designed as a modular, small sattelite e system

Since this seems to have happened a few times, what do people think about my adding a small check to see if those are unbound, and if they are, to either fix it or to display a message?