Wolf Baginski

I remember a mod called Stage Recovery which let you recover some of the cost of a booster, depending in distance from KSC and how hard it hit. You'd have to stage with fuel left in the tanks, which would need another mod, and it doesn't need you to actually do anything, so it's a way off from what you want. Also, it hasn't been updated to v1.1.3 I think there is a mod for some sort of smart part which can trigger staging when there is still some fuel left. That style suits my style of play. Though I can see how detailed control of the whole process of recovery and re-use could be fun. One of the good things about KSP is that we get so much choice, with the many mods. There's no One True Way. As a practical matter, you've essentially got multiple craft in simultaneous flight, all needing control. Again, there are mods to cope with that, but it's not for me.

Does it work in v1.1.3 or is that v1.2 only? Looking at the various stats, I would expect some tweaks to the config numbers. For example, the "boattail" versions have a fairing, and at the moment it's purely decorative. I'd expect a small mass increase, and a drag decrease. Otherwise, why bother? If the models made into the final v1.2, without the upgrades, that'd be fine, but I didn't really expect the upgrades to work at all. It does look as though it could be a v1.2.1 feature.

There's certainly something very like a collision mesh, and you can see the effects when you use radial attachment. But I have also found that changing the order of attachment nodes makes a difference. Shifting the central bottom attachment node to the end of the list helps.

I may try this. I've sometimes had the same feeling of confusion, though I use the Kerbal Engineer mod and I can check the relative times to apoapsis and periapsis in the HUD. Having the option is one of those neat things that the KSP team does that puts them ahead of the pack.

It works, but using the multiple attachment points is very tricky. I am probably using the wrong jargon, but objects have a "collision box", a very simple mesh structure. The collision boxes on the base unit and ascent stage enclose the attachment points, and sometimes the part you attach can be inside the collision box, so you cannot click on it. This may be consequence of accumulated changes in KSP. I did get the thing assembled, and I was able to land safely on Duna. 4 Terriers have enough thrust for a landing, but are very hard to fit. Longer engines can be worked with, they stick down far enough to be clicked on, but they have huge amounts of total thrust. The ascent stage can take six engines, but three ordinary 1.25m engines may be all you need on Duna Incidentally, it would be nice if there were an Agency file included for Phoenix Industries. It looks to be necessary if you want to sort parts by manufacturer.

If you want to replicate the film look. it's essential, but the fuel tank, for instance, is close to stock in capacity and mass. But even if you don't want to do The Martian, the actual capsule goes well with stock. I just did a test with v1.1.3, and it all works, but it was a pain in the proverbial to assemble. Essentially, you have to fit multiple engines to rings of attachment nodes, around a central node for the decoupler, and they are badly set up. I am guessing here, and maybe not using the jargon everyone here uses, but every object in KSP has an invisible collision box, and it looks as though the attachment point are inside the collision box, and so hard to click on. The decoupler between the ascent stage and the base has to be given non-standard settings, crossfeed on, and when you try to click on it, you get the ascent stage, unless you cam in from above and get the camera position inside the collision box. And then it's a case of picking the right engines. 4 Terriers are enough to let you land on Duna, and the ISRU module in the base unit will refill the Ascent Stage tanks in a few days. The capsule and the interstage, the problems are managable. The interstage is effectively an OMS unit. The rest is, alas, more decorative than practical.

I doubt Porkjet is that careless about mesh structures and texturing. I know places where people are that careless, and some people in these parts really need to be more careful about texture sizes for IVAs. It's quite possible that there are large graphics files as master copies, sitting on Porkjet's workstation, but we won't see them.

It looks good, though the .cfg files are bewildering to me. Some sort of decoupler/adapter so it could be launched on a 1.25m booster would be useful, and that would open up opportunities for Contracts. I'm thinking of something similar to the 1960s tests of lifting bodies that NASA did. A suborbital flight and return to KSC, that sort of thing. If it were that sort of test craft, it would be possible to add a radial docking port module and some sort of small OMS sub-system so it could be docked with an orbital station as a lifeboat. I find myself wondering if some of this stuff was around in early 2012, did KSP support docking back then?

Just checked, and v1.1.0 was third week of April, then a hasty release of v1.1.1, and I downloaded v1.1.3 third week of June. It all seemed a bit rushed, but most of that feeling seemed to be from the deep upgrades, including a reliable 64-bit version. I still feel a little nervous, and I may not rush to an upgrade this time. Wait for the formal release. and then wait a little bit more. One of the things I am also wary of is the rush to release compatible mods. Some things need a library to work, some don't. And so much depends on Module Manager. It wasn't KSP that gave me the grief, and you do a far better job than some big-name outfits, but I think I shall pass on the opportunity to try the wonderful new software bugs. Good luck, guys.

It's no big deal, but would it be possible to make a cover that could be jettisoned, in much the same way as a stock fairing? If there were version a without the cover I expect it could be used with a stock fairing anyway, or mounted in other places. One of the things I have done when assembling a station in orbit is have a crew-tube with a docking port on each end, docked to the capsule's docking port. When the capsule leaves, it undocks from the crew tube, leaving it as a spacer to dock more awkwardly shaped modules.

You are a brave man for facing up to Blender. A friend is trying to make objects for another game, and has found that her preferred program has export problems. This game requires a particular file format. If it's produced by Blender, everything is there. After much cursing, some of it in iambic pentameters, she found that the smoothing groups could be exported as part of a different file format, imported by Blender, and then exported in the desired file format. I am not sure just what a "degenerate polygon" is, but one of the problems I found with animations for Poser was if a polygon in Part A was being animated as a component of Part B. It wasn't a problem for an organic object, or for clothes rigged to match the underlying human, because body parts don't do continuous rotation. But something like a vehicle wheel needed extra care. It's not like an elbow, which has a limited range of movement, and where Part A and Part B influence each other, so that skin stretches and wrinkles form. Get the same sort of influence on something like a wheel and a polygon could be distorted beyond all recognition. I am just guessing...

Trial completed. The docking port works fine in v1.1.3 Since the mod uses the same method as given in the module manager file, that should work too Your humble correspondent forgot to fit parachutes to the capsule. Luckily, he landed on his head.

The old Universal Docking Port mod from CaptainKipard was updated for v1.0.5 and may still work. I eyeballed the config file and it uses the method in that Module Manager patch. The links given here at the time were for Mediafire and need the usual rebuilding, but give a Mediafire error message: the downloads are not there any more. There's also something called "Multiports" on Spacedock Which does something fancy to combine two standard models, and is supposed to work with v1.1.3 I have no reason to think either will not work. I shall have to run a trial. I like the look of the older Universal Docking Port mod, but have no idea where you could find it.

This is the thread you want for the Mod. It seems to be working fine on my v1.1.3 install, though the version difference might be part of why you didn't find it. It does a few other things, and you can pick and choose the changes you want. Science Revisited Revisited

I'm thinking that, rather that messing around with monopropellant, it would be possible to make a very small 0.625m SRB that would give one of these enough of a kick to start re-entry from a 100km orbit (number plucked from thin air). I think you can adjust the thrust and fuel load on an SRB, so the 100% levels could be OK for de-orbiting a Mk1 capsule, and it would be dialled down to use in this role. Or you could use some sort of adaptor/decoupler part to mount a triplet of these small SRBs for something similar to a Mercury or Gemini. And there might be other uses for such an SRB, similar to a seperatron, but not radially attached, maybe an apogee-kick motor for an orbiter But that could start involving something procedural

Seriously this is something so laden with copyright and trademark problems that a mod would be crazy. But just spin it around for a moment. If you could put one of our favourite little green men into a photo of a real-world location, which Kerbal, and where?

Does Kerbin have Pokemon? And are they worth science points?

Looks to be working. I have just done an edit to the .version file which should kill the warning message There is an explicit 1.1.3 version of Chatterer on Kerbalstuff now.

There's more than just fuel tank, with the RCS thrusters and multiple engine mounts all in one part, but it's not otherwise very different from a stock fuel tank of similar size. In the book/movie it's not trying for a stable orbit (and the rocket-science involved in the rescue rendevous is pretty low-quality). The size/performance is close to something similar using stock parts.

Oh, I'm not expecting great things. I could see the three-Kerbal pod as a command post for a space-station or a Mun-base (sort of like an airfield control tower). I did deal with the node problem on a lot of stuff. There are also some micro landing-legs in the pack, and they would be a huge can of worms now. The only useful link in the original post is to the Mediafire location, and that has had the usual Mediafire treatment. There have been recent reports of compromised ad networks being used by scammers to get your IP address, once they have that, they can figure out your ISP and send you scary virus warnings that seem, at first glance, to come from your ISP. Mediafire is looking a dangerous place to visit, from the type of adverts I saw. Be very careful. I am not going to hassle the creator, but an official minimal update on Spacedock would be nice. Since you posted at the end of the original thread, I figure I can leave it all up to you [insert Muttley-style snicker]. ++edited to add ++ The version currently on Mediafire has correct node parameters. Change JSITransparentPod to JSIAdvTransparent pod and er, that's it. The Panopticon does have a few frame lines that come-and-go While there is the new buoyancy model, and generally changed temperature limits, I don't really see any point in trying to fix them, since these things are not something that would expect to need them. Who would try re-entry and splashdown in a perspex bubble ("No, Jebediah, just no!").

Also running Mint 17.3 Xfce with the later Kernel 4.4.0-24-generic, no sign of problems yet (There will be a new Mint version along later, and that will have changes to Cinnamon and the kernel. But Mint is based on LTS Ubuntu versions, and Mint 17.3 will stick around.) I think the beta of the next Mint version can be downloaded for testing. I don't feel that adventurous myself. But it might be worth getting involved with the Mint Beta,

It's good to see that those old pods can be made to work. It's a question of taste, but I'd prefer slightly less transparency, and maybe a gold/yellow tint to the glazing. Maybe that needs to be something built in to the mod. I liked what amounted to enclosed command chairs on rovers. And the sample pics are giving me other ideas too.

I did a traceroute, and the responses go to London, through a BT system, and vanish into the wilds of telia.net who are one of the biggest network providers. And they're reported to be having problems, two different events since the 17th. Then I checked the IP address I am getting from the other DNS server, and it still routes through telia.net. And I can't see how it wouldn't have been affected by the telia.net problems too. The overall timing doesn't look right. So maybe the problem is something else. But it's likely the big problems did hit other services I use.

I can confirm that the 37.139.17.225 IP address is the one that's messing me up. Most CDN systems I see are a sort of cache. If the CDN node doesn't have the requested data the request is redirected. The Cache size doesn't have to be that large to make a difference. I have a sort of vague understanding of the principles. This looks broken. I shall try changing my DNS... ...and it works. Hooray

I am getting this, from the UK, and it looks to be affecting everything since Wednesday. Same error message. Is there some better thread than this one. Searching the forums was of little use. It's just possible that they're using the same CDN system that I depend on for an online game, and that may have been misbehaving on the same timescale, But that could easily be down to my ISP. There are other possibilities and I just don't know enough to figure things out. My ISP connection is through plus.net but if you're having the same problems and don't recognise the name, I suppose they'll be in the clear.