Skalou

I started a fresh new carreer on the 1.0.5.1028 (no upgraded building yet) and got this NRE when i launch from the runway: tell me if you need more infos (log, etc...) The error spamming stopped when i upgraded the needed buiding (mission control and tracking station) to unlock the flight planning that allow the manoeuvre nodes.

oh sorry i messed everything, yes i think too it's precise node i will post it there.

a small snack? I started a fresh new carreer on the 1.0.5.1028 (no upgraded building yet) and got this NRE when i launch from the runway: tell me if you need more infos (log, etc...)

i confirm trajectories 1.4.3.0 doesn't work with the stock aero of KSP 1.0.5.1028 : tell if you need more infos (logs,...)

hi , I kept the "toolbar-settings.dat" file from the old KSP 1.0.4 to avoid reconfiguring eveything, does it was safe doctor? ( it seems ok for me), bonus question: will we be warned in game if an other version will be available? thank you for this must have mod!

Perfect Sir!! Thank you very much!

Hi, i'm looking for the mod that allow us to turn off the display of the yellow text (such as time-warp, etc...) when we are in F2 mod, i don't remenber the name of it and can't find it anymore now i want it(too much mods everywhere, it's really amazing how many are there!!). Do you know what is it? Thank you in advance. caaaan't wait for the 1.0.5!

bon, ca avance c'est coool!

Magnifique! De mon avis je préfère la 3eme animation pour le capot moteur, simple et efficace? ou bien même avec un simple carénage éjectable pourquoi rentrer le moteur et refermer? quelle est le besoin? pour les panneaux solaires j'aurais bien vu les panneaux qui se déploient en de part et d'autre de la ligne centrale de la même taille, tant qu'a mettre des articulations autant mettre du gros! pour les logos sur les différentes parts, je trouve ça très bien, et si tu éviter de consommer trop de RAM avec les textures, pourquoi ne pas créer un rectangle décalé de qq millimètres vers l’extérieur àlaquelle il te suffira d'attribuer une 2eme textures(comme pour les flags)? en laissant les parties inutilisées du logo en transparent on apercevra le reste de la texture principale en dessous et on n'y verra que du feu.. C'est que mon avis perso et je suis sur que tu vas nous sortir un truc dément! Encore bravo!

Yep, woaaw really fast fix! i confirm too that the exeption is fixed, no more "sun tracking" for non the deployables solars panels, however there is still the "start deployed/retracted" toggle for them (in the VAB/SPH only), but it doesn't cause issues, an other small thing i see today is there is an inversion in the module manager patch description for 2 of them in the "Extras": in the FairingStagingToggle.cfg: [...] // Adds a "Toggle Staging" switch to all parts with the stock engine modules // (so, all stock engines and many mod engines) [...] and in the EngineStagingToggle.cfg: [...] // Adds a "Toggle Staging" switch to all parts with the stock procedural fairing module // (so, all stock payload fairings, and many mod payload fairings). [...]

a good start to smile? http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/25305-1-0-Vanguard-Technologies-EVA-parachutes-still-works

I confirm this, and there is the tweakables for "deploy" and "sun tracking" available for them but it shouldn't. Keep up the good work and tell us if you need more info or test.

You rock!!!

i disagree for the crew module light suggestion (i prefer keep the cockpit dark when flying, especially when landing), a real light to turn off when in IVA could be great however! i agree whith Alshain on the landing gear lights, but an empty default button for the spoilers is the same as using a number key for me. you just want a logo in the top bar? But i would like a default group for ladders, one for solar/radiator panels and one for antenna with the 1.1 feature! in career i find the limited number of action group just boring, it don't add difficulty ,just a waste of time to toggle the things, or mess the thing by forcing the player to use RCS group for solar pannels or other stuff. it add a real constraint in a few cases for me, like toggling all the air intakes and jet engines whitout engaging a flat spin on a spaceplane.

The BACC "Thumper" Solid Fuel Booster (or the bigger one for bigger charges but i prefer the style of the thumper)

Ok, i' ve made the drag only test: there isn't any significant difference in my opinion, and so no drag difference. and was wrong in my previous test (bad test craft?). Nice link claw, i didn't noticed them at the first reading. so if there isn't difference in drag, and with claw explanation, i think there isn't lift difference too. need to test it later.

Thank you, i've done my Jeb, and was scared to nuke the forum's astronaut complex.

with your technique, the inclination will be lower than 45°(38.64° in fact) so it's better to correct it directly without doing it with a bi-elliptic transfert at the SOI edge (or lower altitude after being in orbit), http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/4374-KSP-Orbit-Mechanic-1-2a-Optimize-Your-Orbits. And i also found i my case it is even cheaper to raise directly the Ap to the target altitude and correct the inclination and finalize the circularisation in the same time before being in a real orbit: case 3), the lower Ap speed counter-balance the oberth effect lost. tomf , it is a bit what you said but i do it in a suborbital flight (can be considered as a highly eccentric orbit?): lower Ap speed and lower Pe altitude too> lower Dv to change plane, a bit more Dv to circularise but it's counter-balanced. And then the solution 4) which is even better: higher inclanation to correct but lower AP speed that give a lower Dv cost for the entire RDV.

Thank you. yep, as my test is now public, i will maybe redo it, do you have other test suggestion guys? i think about this: -more wings: to demultiply the effect if there is a difference, somthing like this? - Maybe doing the test with a vertical launch also? add tons of radial wing on a rocket, and compare how high the 2 crafts are going. it will tell us if there is a drag difference for 2 differentscraft. (it's not the original question but it will help to understand it or to choose how to cheat place our wings) -no control surface on them. -use of a rocket engine even for a low speed plane, to avoid the "engine velocity curve" artifacts. a custom engine with a custom flat ISP and thrust curve?

yes, the control surface on the main wing only control the roll (i maybe disabled them completely for the test but i don't remenber, it was a long time ago), putting control surface during this test was a bad idea, i should have tried without anything on it. As you can see, i asked an auto pilot to keep the plane at 6000m , the difference in the angle of attack, control deflection of control surface,... for me are a consequence of an other balance state(weight= lift, drag=thrust,...). the faster you go the lower your aoa will be to keep the same direction. do you mean extern? ailerons only control roll, so it doesn't matter. or on the rear?( it's the dictionary definition: sorry i'm not an english native), By keeping the same static margin i think this effect is taken into account, and so my main wings are a bit more on the front than if there wasn't ailerons. control surfaces are taken into account for the blue marker (kind of center of pressure). In fact the main problem here is KSP do'"t show the drag, lift,... parameters for wings!

I posted here too, i don't know where is the best place to discuss it: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/136614-Best-way-to-come-back-to-an-equatorial-mun-station But i don't agree with you, with your technique, the inclination will be lower than 45° so it's better to correct it directly without doing it with a bi-elliptic transfert at the SOI edge (or lower altitude after being in orbit), and i also found i my case it is evencheaper to raise directly the Ap to the target altitude and correct the inclination and finalize the circularisation in the same time: case 3), the lower Ap speed counter-balance the oberth effect lost.

the 1.0.5 is on rail to the launchpad?

moved to here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/136614-Best-way-to-come-back-to-an-equatorial-mun-station

Hi, I was asking how to find most efficient way(fuel) to going back to an equatorial station when landed with an offset (not 0° of lattitute), So here is an example with a nearly 45° of lattitude lander, an equatorial orbiter at 50 km around the Mun: the start situation: what i want: docking the orbiter on the top to an orbiter. what i have tried: 1) Launch in low orbit, homman transfert for an intercept with an inclinaison correction at the Ap. ( i tried with different launch inclinations,it is worst than the other case and i didn't took pictures even in doing the correction in a hight bi-elliptic transfert when >45°, sorry), i also tried to jump and land on the equator then re-launch in an equatorial orbit. 2) Launch to reach at the lowest speed the target and then correct the inclination (90° here!) better than all the 1) cases, but there is a huge inclination to correct. 3) Launch to reach the targeted orbit with the lowest inclination beffore complete an orbite (to keep a low Ap speed) better than 2) and 1), but the Ap speed is increased an so the DV to correct the inclation is still a bit high. 4) most interesting, i tried finally a between 2) and 3) solution The best i found for now, the better compromise between a low speed at Ap and a low inclination. but it is empiric, i just tried different angle to find some better than other. Thing to do: - spread it to the world! -find a way to determine the inclination to launch into (i'm really unable to calculate this, specialy for different situations: lattitude of the lander, height of the orbiter,...). however if also found some workaround to avoid this: -don't RDV with the station and go back directly to kerbin, but it's less efficient in most of cases. - have an inclined orbiter, and so just wait his orbit cross over the lander head to launch directly in a coplanar orbit.( and so the solution seems to be: launch in the lowest orbit then RDV with a Hohmann transfert) -move the orbiter the RDV with the lander, and so save a bit of fuel> weight for the lander, i didn't tried it myself to compare. but the idea in my example is to don't move the orbiter(imagine it is a big station). note: you can see on some pictures i tried to RDV directly with the orbiter, that's because it was my initial challenge: "dock to the orbiter before complete 1 orbit", but don't care about that, in this discussion it's not needed. Did you find some other solutions? or are you able to calculate it?

I protest sir! I was asking a few months the same question, and so tested it myself: first, here is 2 pictures that show most of the test: i tried to keep the sames parameters for the 2 crafts (infinite fuel, same part , altitude, time, static margin: distance COM-COL,...), the only thing i tries to change is the wing orientation, rotated of 90°. As you can see there is a small difference in the speed limit (after 4 hours of flights). My suggest: the wing as a thickness, and so the "wide wingspan" show a bigger area facing the relative velocity direction direction that has a bigger drag coefficient (the side faces have a lower drag coeff). Is it a good explanation? But it is going in the opposite IRL rules for the wing shapes in sub-sonic ( aspect ratio). But i don't find it armfull because, the error is small (but additive with a patchwork bigger wing!), KSP is a space game first, and there is FAR solving it for perfectionist ( i don't use it myself anymore, stock is sufficent for me).