Raptor22

I've found that you need to go to prograde in order to line yourself up, then switch to regular stability hold in order to keep that orientation. For some reason, if you have anything else but the regular hold it disables the rotation with the orbit. This is most likely so that you can line yourself up with a maneuver node (which is the only node that really moves as you rotate around a planet) and then still be lined up with it when you come out of warp. However, don't be fooled. Those holds merely disable the rotation with the planet, and will not stop the ship from spinning. I have found this out the hard way as I've tried to rotate my massive station to line up the right way and then time warp only to realize that it kept going. It seems that the momentum override does nothing, as whenever I've tried to stop something rotating by typing in 0 RPM or 1 RPM or any other number, it continues moving. This has been extremely frustrating as sometimes when constructing things in orbit they will break loose of the grip of the arm I'm moving them with, tumbling away from the station. No matter what I try to do, I cannot slow their rotation to grab hold of them with a tug. This has led to a rather dismayingly large amount of derelict station segments around my station, tumbling too quickly to be captured by a TRS (Teleoperator Retrieval System, AKA RCS tug) and some very upset administrators in the funding department. Instances like these are where I wish that either the rotation override actually worked, or there was a way to temporarily disable persistent rotation without uninstalling the mod.

So, I don't know how many people may have brought this up in the past (I don't feel like reading through all 24 pages of this thread), but if there is one feature that I would recommend, it would be a way to temporarily disable this mod. I have found in numerous situations that I have had to use timewarp to stop a craft that is spinning out of control. Is it cheaty? Yes, it is. However, most of us have used cheats at one point or another.

Agh, son of a gun I did have the rescale on there! Sorry for not noticing.

I've been playing one of the most recent dev versions (not THE most recent, but the one after you added the CoM switch, so if this is already fixed just let me know and I'll delete it), and the attach nodes on pretty much all of the Saturn stages appear to have been messed up. Parts are clipped in to each other, and I need to use the offset to fix it. Again, this isn't the most recent dev version, however since you didn't really note anything about it on github I'm assuming that you haven't noticed it yet.

I remember that I figured out a way how to fix it, but I can't exactly remember what I did. I think that I took some of the files from the Mr Meeb folder and replaced the ones in the cormorant aeronology folder, perhaps editing the configs to change the file paths. I'll have to fiddle around with it again to try to figure out what I did.

If I may, I'd like to make a few suggestions for this mod, mainly in concern to the content used to distribute it and the information about it (downloads and wiki, rather than actual in-game content). You do not have to use any of these - I just wanted to get these ideas out of my head and on to "paper," in a sense. Firstly, it may be beneficial to split the downloads in to several "packs," depending on what parts people wish to use. Personally, I don't use the probes very much, however I still wish to hang on to the Apollo subsatellite. To get rid of the other parts, I'd have to go digging through the files and deleting the ones that I don't use - doable, but a pain. I'd recommend that you split them up as you have them listed on your wiki; An Early Rockets pack, and Early Craft and Probes pack, Atlas pack, Thor/Delta Pack, Titan Pack (Could include Leo/Gemini), Saturn Pack (could include Kane/Apollo), Payloads pack, etc. When extracted, the files would be added to the same Bluedog_DB folder. It's not extremely necessary, but it would allow people to more easily pick and choose which parts they want to use, and which they don't, without having to go through and manually trim out what they don't use. This is already a pretty massive mod, and even my decently beefy gaming PC takes quite a while to load all of the files for it. Being able to leave out some content while keeping others would probably reduce load time. Secondly, once you have your wiki updated with all of the new parts, you may want to consider making KSPedia entries for them. That way, you won't have to alt+tab between the game and the github page over and over when building a craft. Whenever you make the page for the Hokulani (if you make a page), it'd be nice if you included a few diagrams of the expansions for the Hokulani, such as the separate airlock module and the foreign research module. I've scoured the web trying to find references to these things and other Skylab expansions and I can't find any good references as to how the modules would be arranged. I know that this is probably just a "do what you want with it" sort of thing, but I'm a stickler for semi-accurate re-creation. Thirdly, you may want to make the Kane/Apollo heatshield a lifting surface. For the longest time I could not figure out why I could not "fly" the pod back in to the atmosphere until I checked the part information and saw that it had no lift characteristics. Finally, as for in-game content, I might recommend that you make a cross-over with Cormorant Aeronology (similar to how you did with CxAerospace) to create the reboost module for the Hokulani/Skylab. I really do love this mod, and I've had a great time making some of my own post-Apollo missions, trying to imagine what they would be like if they had not been cancelled. Can't wait to see what's coming up next.

I'm not saying that he can't do it, nor that he won't make an attempt to do it. However, seeing as how long this mod has been in development hell, and how much stuff Eskandare is already having to take care of (having to not only maintain but expand his other mods, plus having an actual life), I'm pointing out that people shouldn't be too quick to get their hopes up concerning a revival. It may come with a miracle, who knows. I'm just bringing light to past trends, as they can be used to extrapolate the future.

I've seen a lot of people saying "be patient, be patient, it'll be released eventually," but in all honesty, it is most likely that this mod is dead. A sort of HL3 scenario - "It'll be done when it's done. Whenever that'll be, no one will ever know." Just look at the trend. In four days, it will have been one year (Dec 3, 2017) since the last community patch, not even an official fix, and two and a half years since the last official update (June 19, 2016). There have been four major versions since it was last updated - 1.2.2, 1.3.1, 1.4.5, 1.5.1 (sure, there was 1.3.0, 1.4.1, 1.4.3, etc, but I'm talking about the 1.X number updates) - and KSP 1.6 is just around the corner. I recently tried to run this in 1.5.1, and it really does not fly well at all. I remember that back in 1.1.3 and 1.2.2 this shuttle flew so well (especially the Super-25) that I even used them as attack aircraft - swapped out the SME's for jet engines, put on an intake, and this thing flew better than half of the experimental fighters that I've made. I was able to fly through both island hangars - a difficult task, even with an aircraft meant to perform acrobatics. That's how well this thing performed. A dream machine. Flash forward to today, I can barely maintain level flight with the shuttle. It's darn-near impossible to get to orbit, even with some modifications (tons of reaction wheels, clipping canards in the front of the shuttle, etc.). Oh, and re-entry? Forget it, you'll spin out of control, flatspinning all the way to the ground. You better have some level 3 kerbalnauts aboard so that you can parachute out. I'm not a mod author, nor do I claim to be. However, it seems to me that the aerodynamic physics of KSP have greatly changed between 1.1.3 and 1.5.1, judging by how the shuttle could go from flying like a dream to flying like a dead elephant. This mod was one of my favorite mods of all time. I used it for years, since 0.90 at the very least - I can't even remember when I started using it, it's been so long. Yet, seeing as it's been two years since the last update, it really does seem to be time to say goodbye to the mod. Who knows, maybe Eskandare can pull off a miracle, but I'm not going to get my hopes up. When a KSP mod is in development hell for that long, the chances that it will come out alive - let alone more than just a fix to get it working, adding more content - are slim to none, with miracle exceptions being few and far between. So, I guess my point is this: Don't bother trying to ask "when" or even "if" the mod will be updated, as chances are 99/100 that you will be bitterly disappointed. Sure, you can check in every few months to see if a miracle has occurred, but if I have learned anything following this mod, continuing to ask "has there been any progress?" won't get anyone anywhere anytime soon.

I do agree with having a control point built inside of the aft section of the shuttle. It's one less part to add to the shuttle when we don't need to add another probe core. It may also be beneficial if you add actual radiator capability to the SPT cargo bays (right now, the radiator panels are just kind of cosmetic). In the future, it'd be nice to see some expansion to some other shuttles/space planes, such as MAKS (perhaps starting with the MAKS-OS), Dreamchaser, Kliper, etc. I really just like the whole hybrid appearance between stockalike and realistic that this mod has - it kind of has me wanting to see more content. Perhaps cargo handling systems, the Personal Rescue Enclosure (pretty much a ball that astronauts can curl up inside when there weren't enough suits to transfer the crew from a damaged shuttle to a rescue shuttle, and then either carried over by a suited astronaut or using the RMS), an SCA mount/engine shroud, some more cargo mounting equipment (such as for recovering payloads), etc. Personally, I'd like to see the SCA equipment once you've finished with the Block II shuttle, IUS, and whatever other projects you're currently working on. I've been trying to figure out a way how to complete two missions without recovering the shuttle - using the same shuttle, loading it on the SCA and flying it back to the KSC and loading a new payload, mating it to the STS stack (if possible, using the same SRB's from the first launch, towed back to shore), attaching the whole thing together with KAS on the mobile launch platform, wheeling it out to the launch pad and launching once more. Just a few suggestions - things that you can add to a "do when I'm finished with everything else" list. I have to say, your stuff looks darn good.

Is there any way to adjust the number of satellites needed for full coverage permanently? I have tried editing it in the persistent.sfs file, yet with every new review it keeps returning to the previous value. I'm trying to do this because when using GPP it thinks that I will need 503 satellites to get full coverage around Grannus. As a result, my satellite coverage percentage is always extremely low, and it will probably never get anywhere near 100% because having that many flights at once is bound to make your save lag like crazy. Additionally, despite meeting the requirements for an orbital science station (a scientist, science lab, antenna, power, science instruments, fuel, docking ports, docked vessels, listed as a station, "station" in the name, the whole 9 yards), it still does not recognize my stations as science stations. Also, despite not losing any Kerbals, continuing to launch at an incredible rate, having over half a dozen stations, rovers, and landers, and not failing any contracts, my PO and SC keep falling. I can't tell what the modifier values are supposed to be - it just says "state confidence modifiers and decay = 1374." ...Okay? So... what does that mean? Is it decay? Is it growth? Is there supposed to be some positive or negative there? I've tried boosting it by editing persistent.sfs, but then it just drops from that value (increase from 5 to 20, next evaluation it's down to 17). I honestly have no clue what I'm doing wrong with this. UKSA emphasizes on having lots of Kerbals in space - I have 51, and it's still falling. It just doesn't make much sense why the value keeps falling even though I'm doing everything I should to be raising it, and I haven't done anything to really make it fall (such as losing a contract, killing a kerbal, crashing a ship, etc.).

I have attempted everything that you have suggested. I have tried CRP, I have tried classic stock. Neither work. I spent the past 3 hours waiting as my game took insanity-provokingly long times to load as I did the "switch to pristine, reload, switch to crp/classic stock, reload" method. CRP doesn't work. Classic stock doesn't work. Lite blue doesn't work. This mod is officially broken. And, yes, I am using the newest version of the mod. Buckboards still do not work, re-configuring the modules barely works (and they still can't show the decals). It just doesn't work. The core features of this mod - reconfigurable containers and habitats - is inop. I don't know what to say. I wish you luck in fixing it.

I'm using the very latest version of Pathfinder in KSP 1.5.1, using Lite Blue, and for some reason the Buckboards do not work. They only work as KIS containers - the "reconfigure storage" button is not there. The Tundra modules still work, but for some reason they show the Koncrete and Equipment configs 3 times each, for a total of 6 lines. They're all the exact same things: Additionally, the Panderosa, Chuckwagon, and pretty much all of the other modules are not able to be re-configured. They do not even show their markings: I've been encountering this issue since 1.4.5. Is there any way to fix it? I'd prefer to stay in Lite Blue, since it's the mode that I am most familiar with. NOTE: These bugs occur with both Lite Blue and CRP play modes (and, yes, I restarted my game between changing modes.)

So, I don't know what's going on, but even though I have about a dozen space stations, sat coverage at around 20%, half a dozen active rovers, mining rigs, etc, my state confidence and public opinion keep falling. I haven't lost any vessels, but this really just doesn't make much sense at all. And what do the numbers for the modifiers and decay really even mean? How can you tell if it's decay or growth? Here's my current stats: Public Opinion: 3 State Confidence: 3 Public Opinion After Modifiers & Decay: 424 State Confidence After Modifiers & Decay: 984 What do those figures for modifiers and decay even entail?

So, I've been playing with the Krakenarm lately (WIP part, to those who are unaware), and I've noticed a few things: Firstly, while it has an attach node, there are no attach nodes in the cargo to place it, so I have to kind of guesstimate where it's supposed to go. Secondly, I found the default speed of 15deg/s to be a bit fast. I'm not sure if there is a way to adjust this, but I'd suggest something around 5-10deg/s default. Thirdly, the name is quite accurate, since I've ran into a few kraken glitches when extending the arm out quite a ways, since apparently the game doesn't like the loose magnet connection. I'm not sure if this is possible, but be great if there was a way to add "claw" functionality to this, so that it can actually "dock" with whatever it's holding. This may solve the issue mentioned above. Overall, besides a few issues, the arm is working rather well. Since it's all one part, it doesn't have the floppiness of IR arms.

Ah, alright. I was hoping to see them made in the same style as the DAV here. Besides, the SPER parts don't really allow for that whole garage thing.

I love it! Can't wait to see if you do the habitat as well. I don't know why, but I've always liked the look of the Mars Direct habitat.

One thing that I did notice with the provided craft files is that the actuation for the RCS is a bit weird. On the US shuttle, yaw and roll are disabled on the nose. On the OMS, on one side the roll is disabled and on the other yaw is disabled. It doesn't make much sense why the RCS would be disabled, especially when you disable some axes on one side but not the other. I'm going to guess that it was a mistake, but it's still kind of weird. Similar thing with the Buran, as well. It's also weird that the boosters separate in two pairs, when they all burn out at once. Are they supposed to burn so that one pair is expended and jettisoned, and then the other, and just the fuel flow got messed up? I dunno. It seems weird. Gimbal is also disabled on the core engines, and from what I've read those engines should have at least a 7 degree gimbal. Also, are the control surfaces supposed to be disabled on launch? I'd imagine so, but seeing all of these controls (RCS, gimbals, etc.) being disabled kind of in a nonsensical way (asymmetric RCS authority on port and starboard, etc.), it's kind of hard to tell if this is another mistake.

Alright, I'll have to give it a try. Atmospheric autopilot is quite unfamiliar to me, but with time I bet I can learn it. I might give kOS a shot, as well, but that's a whole new beast in itself. I'll let you know how it turns out.

Even with the SRB's attached? I thought that it was only 1-axis pitch gimbal until the SRB's separated, then the 2-axis pitch, yaw, and roll kicked in. I've tried that as well, with mixed results. But, I haven't tried it with mechjeb. At this point, it's worth a shot.

Huh, I thought that Atmospheric Autopilot was just for aircraft (hence "Atmospheric"). I didn't know it would work as a launch autopilot as well. I'll have to give that a shot. I'll have to try that. I was looking for something similar, trying to use SmartASS, but it seems that either I'm thinking of the wrong thing or they've simplified it since I last used it... oh, back in 1.1.3 I'd have to say. I swear that it you used to be able to put specific values into SmartASS (heading, roll, and pitch in degrees) to get it to execute precise maneuvers. I've tried a lot of stuff, but it really is just a beast to control without guidance. I found that disabling the yaw on the SRB's did help a small bit with the yawing to the side (seems counter-intuitive, I know), but it still does go to the side and then I have the issue with not being able to correct that yaw, albeit reduced from earlier. It also seemed to stop this oscillating effect that I had with it on. Either way, I'll have to give Atmospheric Autopilot and hybrid attitude adjustment a shot. Thanks for the help. I've had a lot of fun with this mod. It makes me wish that the shuttle program lived up to what it was hoped to be, and continued to this day.

So, I don't know if there is something wrong with the mod or something wrong with how I'm flying the shuttle, but I cannot do the roll maneuver. Whenever I try, even with fine controls on, the shuttle yaws WAY off to the side. SAS doesn't seem to want to compensate for this, and manual compensation is extremely hard to do. I end up several degrees off of my preferred orbital inclination. I'm using the provided craft, before you ask, and it does this with or without a payload. Control surfaces are disabled during ascent and the 2-axis gimbal is disabled while SRB's are attached (enabled once separated, as per the instructions.) So, is there something wonky with KSP's physics? Am I doing anything wrong? Or is there an autopilot mod that I should use? Mechjeb often times ends up spinning the shuttle out of control, so that doesn't seem to be an option. Help would be appreciated.

This reminds me of something... ominous...

Alright, an update. I uninstalled MOLE and the buckboards and pathfinder now appear to work. This seems really odd that MOLE and Pathfinder would have problems working together. It doesn't make much sense that two mods made by the same guy would be incompatible, but that seems to be the case. I was using MOLE solely for its long-duration exposure experiment modules and labs, which were needed for a series of contracts I had accepted. I saw that I could use the pathfinder Doc science lab, but an inflatable surface module just doesn't look all that good on a space station. This may be something for you to look in to, @Angel-125. Great work, otherwise.