MarkTheRabidCat

please add a button to "retry" when updating mods or changing things, it's REALLY REALLY ANNOYING, to have to close the program, open the program, and redo all the changes any time it fails to do something.

...... I... I might just do that... and put it into CKAN, like the RSS and Default configs for TACLS.... could even make a few different ballences... maybe after I get a new job and can devote the time without worrying about my rent.

Well, that makes sense. I think the only science part that wouldn't make sense for inverse cost is the goo pod. Because unless you can reduce the ammount of science you get from smaller parts, we have to assume that you're packing the same amount of accuracy into even a smaller thermometre. AI core should also probably be inverse, and even with not wanting to break crafts I'd really argue that squishing 3 kerbals into a 1.25m command pod is inkerbane no matter how you slice it.

Actually scaling things down can be just as cheaty. For example the tiny stock engines are less efficient and often don't come in the ecact size you need them. If you only want to use TweakScale for a certain mod, you can safely remove some (or all) of the config files in the 'patches' folder. This is the typical solution for people who want to scale something specific but otherwise keep the 'lego blocks' feel of restricted puzzle pieces. There is a config interface for size restrictions, where you can unlock scaleFactors with techs. However it uses absolute scales, so you can write "this scaleType(or part) needs techX to scale to 2.5m" but not "you can now scale everything to half size". I currently don't include restriction configs because I consider them a pain to do and maintain, and it would break easily as soon as someone moves parts in the tech tree. Actually 1 HUGE problem wth being able to scale things down, is, the fact that, 4 scaled down material research bays inside a 1.25m service bay COSTS LESS and WEIGHS LESS than ONE material research bay, and once you're doing that you may aswell scale down your whole ship, bring thing mission cost from 23,000 to 700! scaling up isn't actually that bad, because it justs allows you to get around the part limits, and that you haven't unlocked a larger engine. However, once your able to scale down your payloads, science and crew pods, all bets are off! And the problem with just ignoring the ability, is once you know it's there, any time where you could solve a problem just by using it, it becomes very hard to think about a different solution. I"m currently trying to build a ship to escape the atmosphere with a few material bays, but all I want to do is just say screw it, and make them tiny. And you have to remember there is Dark Multi-Player, where it stops being about going against your own ethics and now going against other peoples.

I heard you were going to put this on CKAN, so I checked CKAN today, and it's not there. So I checked back a few days on here to see what the progress was on that... So updating to 1.0.4 removed it from CKAN? 0_o

Honestly, it would never really be a mistake to add a feature, besides, full physics simulation for all applicable vessels is probably something they've decided they need for truely supported multiplayer. Cause I'm not sure if you've noticed, but there's a lot of glitchyness around airborne vessels in DMP, someone else is landing their vessel and it gets deleted for you, and all other kinds of desyncs related to this, not to mention DMP also has to continually block deletion. And don't even get me started on the automatic debris removal, I deffinately want that gotten rid of. Though I do also agree that a simpler option would be better, for single player, like a quick simple plotting of a trajectory by calculating an average drag co-efficent, and then doing "basic" curve plotting with the parachutes deployment altitudes added in. The kind of thing you would do in university on a TI-82, which your computer could do without even batting an eye. TL:DR, I think full simulation would be a good idea serverside, and a quick ballistic trajectory calculation for singleplayer, and for said trajectory calculation, I just think that should do auto recovery when it hits the ground, if it should be able to survive, otherwise it should be deleted on IMPACT.

Link?

With career being a thing, and recovering parts saving you money, it's starting to REALLY REALLY .... me off that I can't set up some parachutes on a piece of debris and let it land on it's own, without some optimisation system arbitrarilly deciding to delete it. It's also bugging me, that the only "fix" that anyone has thought of for this, is to just increase the load distance, which includes object that are otherwise fine on their rails in space. I would just like it if it would just load anything in the atmosphere, either within the current simulation or in it's own, but just load it! I dunno, maybe even some kind of auto recovery, if debris is going slow enough that it shouldn't get burned to bits, then a quick evaluation of how much drag it would get at the range of atmospheric density, then compute a speed and position curve using basic physics, find it's speed at the parachutes predeploy altitude and if they're not going to rip off or burn off, and are going to fully deploy before it hits the ground, and have enough drag to bring the object below the lowest crash tolerance of the vessel, have it be auto recovered when it should reach the ground!. Then maybe use that to set up a pre determined path so players could still interupt it. It might not be completely realistic, but as long as you ballence it toward it being more dangerous than normal simulation, it won't feel broken.

Am I the only person who thinks that squad's shrouds completely blew KW's and the procedural ones away? There's no limit on their height, you're not stuck with one width for the whole thing, they work just as well being an interstage instead of a full shroud, they tell you how much they're going to weigh while you're making them, and they're really easy to build around. The only 2 problems I've seen is how they blow off into non-persistent debris (sorry, I like my kessler syndrome), and that you can't make the bullet shaped and curvy.

Good luck on the exams!

I've found that my tech tree has recently started removing the Structural Wing Type A, and the Wing Connector Type A, I've readded it to the save manually about 3 times, but it gets removed whenever I open up the science building. I even tried adding them into the KSPI_techtree_0.90.cfg to no avail. The mods I have installed are: This, Farram Aerospace, Deadly Reentry, Kerbal Alarm Clock, KW rocketry, Kerbal Joint Reinforcement, Tac Life Support, Kerbal Attachment System, KW Rocketry, Procedural Fairings, Remote Tech, and SCANsat. Oh and basic Texture Management. And the modual manager dll in my gamedata is 2.5.8 I also noticed the Kerbal Alarm Clock has made some backup persistent files, which I noticed still have the Type A parts in them... I also haven't updated for about a month so, this could be fixed already, possibly. Nevermind, found them in the advanced aerodynamics node, seems a little far along for such a vital wing part, oh well.

Ok, I"m running the Interstellar 0.90 fix, FAR (Farram Areospace), SCANsat, Remote Tech, Deadly Reentry, KAS (Kerbal Attachment System), Kerbal Alarmclock, TAC Life Support, Kerbal Joint Reinforcement, and Active Texture Management on Basic mode. I added KWRocktry recently, and am just running the default install with just the folder for gamedata and nothing from extras, as per the instructions (unless I read them wrong). Whenever I use the fairings, in the VAB... well here's a thousand words And it's the same with all of the other sizes to, just, bigger. The fairings also don't detach when I hit decouple, whether I hit it on the base or on the cone. Everything else seems fine though, the fuel tanks and thrusters etc. KWR I downloaded just yesterday and everything should be relatively up to date, I only downloaded them as of the last week. And this is why I'm freaking out. Help? (PS What makes the interstage adapters different from normal adapters?)

Yeaaaah, No it DOES NOT work fine, just tried it the attachment points are all over the [fluffy bunnies], they need to be reconfigured to show up in the new sort options, and the fairings themselves don't want to eject. Oh, and the fairings also freak out when you try to offset them. NOT working fine. (also, the clicking box for the fairings in the VAB are really really small, but that might be intentional) Please update, please please please