-ctn-

Haha, it's all good. I'm going to fix the symmetry thing next week. Now that I'm looking at more reference, looks like I was mistaken. And be sure to do the fix hraban just pointed out. I had someone else mention the issue to me. Fun times! I'll try to get a hot fix up tonight.

sorry, wrong phrase. It does disappear into the part it's attached to. I tried to put it on the mk1-2 pod, the 1.25m and 2.5m fuel tanks and the octo probe core. Not a major deal, just slightly annoying. I typically use the stackable kOS parts anyway.

Nice, with the highlighting! I did change the nodes because I had to re-export the model from Blender to Unity, as I tweaked how "deep" the engines hide inside of it. It worked fine on my machine when I tested it. Did you install all the files from 1.1? That's very strange. I would love to see if someone else has the same issue.

The new HAL part seems to z-fight when surface attached. Anybody else have this issue?

Uh oh, the nodes for the interstage were wrong? Can you be more specific? Which ones? What did you change?

Erm, the texture looks fine to me, sorry you think it looks funny. The RCS does indeed line up with the ports on the texture. And see the above posts about the symmetry. I haven't noticed anything "messed up" from the six ports, but it's already been pointed out that they are not "truly six-sided symmetrical." I'll see what I can do about the symmetry for the next update, but that won't be until after the weekend. I need a break.

Hey everyone! Just updated to version 1.1. Changelog is above in the hidden text field on the original post.

If I add the decoupler module to the parts, then your MechJeb/KER readouts for delta-V will not display properly. Use the stock separators if you think the decouplers are too bulky. I usually never use the decouplers. Is it really that annoying to spend an extra 30 seconds placing the engines? I'll try to work on it. WIP: Working on the landing base/ISRU. But there's a serious tipping problem (haha!). EDIT: Progress! Hatch works, you'll be able to enter the craft through the bottom stage.

That's exactly what I was thinking of doing. Good to hear, I usually have USI stuff installed anyway. I'll look into that.

Okay, well first - I do appreciate any criticism and comments! They help create a better "thing" for everyone involved. That being said, a few things: I resent this statement, because I spend a great deal of time on these mods - this past week in particular, every hour I am not sleeping or at work, I am trying to get all my half-finished projects done and released. This whole statement is not relevant to me - I am not the author of the Tundra mod. Sorry. If you're talking about my CRS mod and mis-typed, I have not noticed (and nobody has complained since it's release) anything wrong with the symmetry, except that a few people thought the engines should be on four axes, not two. But I presented my reference material and stated that it will be keeping the two engines, which works perfectly. Anyway, on to this mod- Yes, it is not truly symmetrical. The six details that come off of the main shape are not "six-sided symmetry" because that's how it looked in the reference photos to me and it creates a visually interesting piece. The mod still functions, and it flies fine. I suggest you download it and try it out before hacking it apart. The only way the symmetry would be a complaint is if someone tried to radially attach things to the main stage - but if you use three-way symmetry, they look fine. Nevertheless, I will go back and see what I can do about tweaking the mesh to be truly six-sided symmetry - as long as it doesn't break or warp the texture too much. In the meantime, download it and try it out - and check your sources. EDIT: I should note, that the engine mounts on the underside of both pieces ARE perfectly symmetrical, so rest assured - no asymmetric thrust.

I'll see if I can add "intakeAtm" as a resource and see if I can get it working quickly. Edit: Alright, I am going to model the third "landing" stage. It will attach to the bottom of the main stage, and with the use of a decoupler will work like the movie. It will adapt the bottom of the MAV to a circular 3.75 for stacking on big rockets. I'll also hopefully get it to be the ISRU to pump fuel into the MAV.

Are you talking about the symmetry on the main stage? I haven't noticed issues with it. I don't typically add support for other mods with my own, so if another mod's engines don't attach properly... Sorry! I'm not sure what the problem would be. There are no built-in decouplers. Both stages have a bottom-stack node. The one on the main stage can be used for a decoupler or separator (surrounded by the six engines) and then some of the stock adapters can be used to turn it into a 3.75m rocket. I'm at work right now, but I'll make an example craft later and show it. And intakeAtm isn't a stock resource, either. I can add that as a resource, I think, through a config file - but I'm not too keen on mods that add resources and add a ton of new things to keep track of. Maybe I'll try that too, and see how it goes.

That's what I want, but is Atmosphere a resource? I thought intakeAir was, and that is only on Kerbin and Laythe as oxygen.

I'm not disputing how cool it would be, but I have a lot of projects and I don't want to overwhelm myself with them. I'll try to fiddle with a third stage this weekend or next week and see if I can come up with something that looks nice and works well.

As evidenced by some of my other works in progress, I have horrible luck with Unity and any more complicated modules. As such, I don't plan on making any landing legs, although I have toyed with the idea of making the "third stage" wire cage that supports the ISRU, descent engines, and landing legs.

Hey everyone! This is something I've been meaning to get done for a little while. It's a very simple, stock-alike MAV. Parts included are: Command pod (using a stock IVA) with built in RCS and decoupler Interstage including RCS, fuel, a power generator, and four 0.625m mounts for engines Main fuel tank with six 1.25m engine mounts and a spare 1.25m node for attaching to the base. Landing base, with a built in hatch for ground access, an ISRU module that uses the Community Resource Pack to turn Carbon Dioxide into fuel, and four 1.25m engine mounts for powered landing. If you assemble a craft yourself, make sure the decoupler you use between the base and the main tank has fuel cross feed enabled. The base also has an attach node on the bottom, meant for attaching it to 3.75m decouplers or rockets. Also, this is not meant to be super screen-accurate. It's just something I wanted to do for fun. For a more accurate mod, look for xxhansonmaxx's mod. This mod is no longer packaged with the a Community Resource Pack. In order to utilize the ISRU aspect of the mod, please download the most recent version of the Community Resource Pack. License: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License Download from SpaceDock!

Nope, Kottabos reviewed a different member's Rover mod.

If you set your chutes to action groups, the script for a deorbit/ chute landing is quite simple. if you're looking for a powered landing, that's a bit more work. I have a script I'm working on that throttles the engines for a soft landing, but they "sputter," unlike Kartoffelkuchen's script, which is quite nice and uses a single burn. I'm not sure how he did that yet, but I'm assuming it has something to do with throttling the engines to a certain TWR during the descent.

Yes, I agree. But sometimes figuring it all out on your own is rewarding too!

As far as I know, there is no up-to-date example library. You can glean some information from outdated scripts, but the real meat and potatoes comes from the kOS documentation github. It has everything you need, just remember that coding is a specific and fussy business. Most of my time when writing a script is spent on that documentation site and testing.

Well, it is a coding language. That's how it usually goes - the bulk of the program is done fairly quickly, and then dozens of hours are spent tweaking it or streamlining it.

Right. The reason why "set throttle" doesn't work is because it only sets the throttle to that value while the code is running. Once the code program ends, the throttle position is set by default to whatever you had it set to before you ran the code. So if you had your throttle up full-blast and then ran the code, when the code is completed, it will set your throttle back to full blast. The line of code Alchemist recommended will tell the code that you are setting a new "default" value for the throttle, so when the code program ends, it will return the throttle to this value

Nice! That's a fair bit more reliable than my version. As I said, all it does is loop between throttle at 0.5 if vertical speed is greater than or equal to 2m/s and throttle at 0 if vertical speed is less than 2m/s. When it works, I get a nice slow touchdown from 40 meters altitude, but if the parachute doesn't slow my speed enough, the engines won't kick on and I crash.

Nice! How do you get kOS to calculate the gravity of the body? I tried looking but could not find a way for it to find that out - it was up to me to "hard code" that in.

Huh, I've never examined it that closely I suppose! I'll add it to the list on improvements for future updates.